HORRID MURDERS IN EDINBURGH.

i

PRATT'S EDITION.
THE

TRIAL

OP

WM. BURKE & HELEN M'DOUGAL,

On Wednesday, December 24th. 1828,

In the High Court of Justiciary,

Before the Right Honourable Lord Chief Justice Clerk, and
Lords Pitmilly, Meadovtbank, and Mackenzie,

On an Indictment for the

mxtutti fftttvtfcv

op

MARY PATTERSON, JAMES WILSON and MADGY

M'GONEGAL,

Between the 7th. and 16th. of April, the 5th. and 26th. of October, and on the

31st. of October, 1828,

In the Canongate and West Port,
EDINBURGH.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE

TO THE MEDICAL FACULTY.

; WITH PORTRAITS OF THE PRISONERS.

Printed and Published by J. PRATT, 11, Bridge-Street, Manchester ;
and Sold also by all the Booksellers.
PRICE SIX - PENCE.

2

INTRODUCTION.

Three distinct murders of unparalleled atrocity have now under-
gone a final investigation, and the convicted culprit consigned to that
punishment, which, in all civilized nations, is awarded to a crime com-
mitted under circumstances less abhorrent to the feelings of human na-
ture. There have been times and nations, where every man's life had
its market price, where the murderer was mulcted according to the
scale laid down by the laws, and escaped personal punishment by the
intervention of his purse. But we can scarcely imagine that a case
like this, one which, indeed, could not have been thought of, would
have been classed among the less horrible of high crimes, or that the
wealth or rank of the murderer would have saved him from death by
the hands of the executioner.

Murder, as simply defined, is the unlawful taking away of the life
of another, and includes various degrees of enormity. Perhaps, all
murders according to the definition, are equal in the eyes of a Draco,
and, indeed, they are so treated by our laws ; but as the bulk of man-
kind is constituted, there are circumstances which make one crime of
this description still more horrible than another. The man who blows
out the brains of another, excites somewhat less aversion than he
who commits the same crime by cutting the throat of a fellow crea-
ture ; and he who attains his end by starving a wife to death,* or by
whipping a child 1o death, f in almost all cases draws upon himself
more indignation than either. The fact is, we do not look upon each
individual murder merely as the unlawful taking away of a life, but we
invariably associate with it all its concomitant circumstances. To so-
ciety, as an infraction of its laws, all murders are equal ; but the de-
gree of cruelty exercised towards the sufferer, and the situation in
which the murdered and the murderer stand with regard to each other,
make a wonderful distinction in the nature of the crime. The man
who kills his parent is undoubtedly a more guilty man than one who
slays an indifferent person. The first laws of Rome contained no
enactment for the punishment of such a crime ; the occurrence of
such a crime, although instances might be found among some of the
Grecian and the barbarian states, was not once imagined.

On whomsoever inflicted, and by what means soever effected, the
crime itself is still the same ; yet, as there are circumstances preceding
the perpetration, which heighten the horror of the catastrophe, so
there are others succeeding the fatal stroke, which create a distinction
that cannot be attended to by human laws, and which equally shock
the human mind, although the sufferer can have been no longer sensi-
ble to them. When Hayes quartered the body of her husband, whose
murder itself wras of the milder kind, the whole nation found its feel-
ings outraged ; when Gardelle endeavoured to conceal his crime by
burning the limbs of his victim, its indignation was so much roused,
that the murderer was threatened with violence on his way to execution.

The case of Ogilvie and Nairne, to which one of the advocates
alludes in the course of the following trial, although a most atrocious
one, excited merely interest, as the phrase is. An adulterous and J-

* King against Williams,
t King against Brownrigg, wile, and son,— Session* Papers, 17—.

s

most incestuous intercourse, followed "by the murder of a worthy man,
'formed the offence against society; but yet, judjing from the public
prints of the time, no particular feeling of resentment prevailed ; and,
at one period, the privy council manifested so much unwillingness to
return the warrant for Lieutenant Ogilvie's execution, that the general
opinion was that he would be pardoned. And why was this? No cir-
cumstances of horror, more than any other murder, attended the com-
mission of the crime ; and the intercourse, subsequently proved to
have subsisted between him and Nairne, was not believed.

The means, sometimes taken by the murderer, to conceal the body,
are found to aggravate his offence in the eyes of the public, as in the
cases of Hayes and Gardelle. To these we add that of the Maynards.
These women, having kept in their possession the body of a murdered
girl, until the progress of decomposition rendered it necessary to dis-
pose of the remains so as to prevent detection, conveyed them to a
common sewer, where they were found by a watchman. The coro-
ner, conceiving they had been deposited there from one "of the hospitals,
refused to bold an inquest, and the matter rested for some months.
When the affair came to light, the publie mind was as much agitated
as it had before been by other atrocities. In this respect there seems
to be more feeling towards the senseless carcase of a murdered creature,
than sympathy for the fate of the living being.

In the whole course of the unfortunately too copious pages of the
annals of crime, nothing is to be found like that which gave occasion
to the following investigation. There is nothing which has given rise
to so much hoi-ror and disgust at the crime, so much detestation of the
villains by whom it was perpetrated. If we analyse it, there seems to
be nothing peculiarly more heinous than in any other murder. The
deed is effected by strangulation, and so was Malcolm's ; this is the
murder. The object is benefit, and it is so in all others. The
body is sold to the surgeons, while those of other murdered persons
are concealed, accordingly as the murderer's circumstances allow;
some by burning, some by burying, and some by natural decomposi-
tion in secret places. It is the reduction of murder to a system which
has operated on the public mind, and produced so much, at once, of
horror and astonishment.

While on this subject we cannot but refer to a case which has just
occurred, and which, as a systematic mode of obtaining a livelihood by
murder and rapine, is analagous to the West Port murders. On the
I4th of December there were two parties, one Scotch and the other
Irish, on board the Glasgow steam packet. " The Irish party invited
the two highlanders to drink with them, and while they were enjoying
themselves, a quantity of laudanum was infused into the glass of Ro-
bert Lamond (one of the Irish parly), and he expired of its effects on
Tuesday morning." On searching the Scotch party, £20. of the de-
ceased's property, together with a bottle, which was supposed to have
contained the poison, were found. " On the 25th of May last," says
the same Account, " a man came by his death in a house in the Tron-
gate, in the same mysterious manner ; and on the 19th of October,
another man was murdered in the same manner in the Bridge-gate."
The Glasgow Herald says, " a fixed belief exists among some people here,
who have the best opportunity of judging, that the above persons make
a livelihood by the commission of murder and robbery; that they may
have been the same wretches who were concerned in poisoning a man

4

m

who came off the Glasgow coach, on its landing in Edinburgh, about
ten months ago ; and that there is a strong presumption that both of
them were concerned in depriving of life the two men mentioned
above,"

The Editor of the Edinburgh Observer has the following appropri-
ate observations, on the West Port murders : — " The guilt of these
criminals is no longer a matter of conjecture. One of them has
been fully convicted of one of the heinous offences laid to his charge,
and received sentence of condemnation. The other has escaped a
similar fate by a verdict of " Not Proven but the evidence which
we this day publish, is of such a complexion as to leave no doubt as
to the fact of her having been accessary to the crime for which her as-
sociate is to die, — although the Jury, regarding her as the lesser
offender, have mercifully absolved her from the same terrible penalty.
Public anticipation was greatly excited previous to the trial ; but we
believe the atrocities disclosed in Court have more than realized the
most romantic speculations. A more frightful instance of human
turpitude never, perhaps, was detected among a Christian people j
and the mind, rendered credulous by the magnitude of the crimes al-
leged, broods in horror over those scenes of iniquity which a \eilf
interposed by the nic edistinctions of the penal law, still shrouds in
mystery. The criminals were indicted for no less than three separate
acts of murder ; but the conjunction of the crimes enumerated in the
indictment was held to be prejudicial, and the culprits were tried only
on one charge, with the understanding that the others were to be dis-
cussed seriatim. That, of corurse,. is now unnecessary, as the law has
already marked out its victim. Burke and the wretched woman who
was tried along with him were not married, as is generally understood.
How long they have lived by the flagitious traflic of murdering, and
selling the remains of their fellow-creatures, is unknown ; but it is
certain that the former, and Hare, one of the socii criminis, by whose
evidence he has been partly convicted, have been jointly engaged in
deeds of blood for at least a year. Sometimes one was the principal,
and sometimes the other ; and it would appear that their houses alter-
nately served as shambles for their systematic butcheries. It is some
satisfaction to outraged humanity that vengeance was not slow to over-
take them.* The evidence of Hare and his wife on the trial was sin-
gularly revolting. The former is one of those villanously-favoured
ruffians, whom nature has stamped with the impress of guilt — con-
temptible in figure — meanly repulsive in features— and grovellingly
earnest to preserve his ignominious life. The latter has something of
vulgar smartness about her, but her face indicates the same moral de-
basement ; and as the learned counsel justly remarked, she seemed to
regard the miserable child she held in her arms, with more of malig-
nity than of motherly affection. We believe there was not a single
individual, who heard these reptiles repeat their tale of guilt, who did
not lament that the ends of justice could not be otherwise advanced,
than by allowing them to appear in the witness-box instead: of at the
bar. But a day of retribution is yet in reserve. They go forth into the
world with a brand which shall point them out as objects of horror,
even to the meanest wretch that sweeps the kennel for subsistence.

* How can it be said not to have been slow, when, from the examination
of Hare, it is clear that they had carried on their traffic for some time.— Edit.

5

We have only one additional remark to make. It is a fact honour-
able to the Scottish bar, that on this occasion, the most eminent of its
members, viewing the case as one in which the utmost circumspection
was requisite, in consequence of the agitation of the public mind,
came forward,, and gratuitously exerted their splendid talents, to obvi-
ate, as far as might be, the hazard of human feelings militating
unduly against the accused. Never did these great men make a proud-
er display of the professional abilities that have rendered them so illus-
trious ; and if they failed to satisfy the jury, that, in Burke's case at
least, there was the smallest palliative, even that mighty criminal him-
self has reason to say, " Never was a convicted murderer more ably
defended."

ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH CRIMINAL LAWS.

The criminal proceedings in Scotland are much more favourable to
the prisoner, or pannel as he is there termed, than those, of England.
When the prisoner is brought up to plead to his indictment, he may, if
he choose, object to its relevancy, alleging that it states matters which
do not apply to his case, or any circumstances, which, he considers, may
throw the indictment out of court. And in th is firs t important step, he
is assisted by Counsel, who argee the different points which are sup-
posed to invalidate the bill. After a reply from the opposite side, the
five judges consider the arguments adduced, and pronounce, mostly
seriatim, their opinions a* to the validity of the indictment. If the
prisoner's objections are found to be fatalt of course the indictment is
quashed, and, tlierefore, there is nothing to which he can be called upon
to plead.

By our laws, the prisoner must put in his plea to the indictment y
however absurdly and ridicoushj it may be laid, and however irrelevant
the facts alleged in it may be ; and this plea, whether of guilt or in-
nocence, must be considered as a virtual acknowledgment that the
indictment is relevant : at all events the trial proceeds to a verdictr
unless in the course of the examination something turns out by which
the indictment is nullified. If it go on to a verdict, and that of guily,
the last chance for the prisoner is a motion in arrest of judgment,
wl\ich is either immediately determined by the presiding judge, or left
to the consideration of the twelve judges, ivhose decision is followed up
by judgment and execution of the sentence. Thus the prisoner under-
goes the fatigue and anxiety of a trial, and afterwards a suspense of
several months, before he learns the result. It is true that he may put
in what is called a demurrer ; that is, he may plead guilty to the charge
generally, and that his conduct has not been contrary to the law
particularly applicable to his case.* If the objections are overruled,
sentence is passed upon the prisoner in virtue of his plea.

These are the only chances which are allowed to the English pri-
soners. The latter, indeed,, can scarcely be deemed such, particularly
to a man who is conscious of his innocence ; for after his plea, the
question no longer rests upon the allegations of the indictment, or the
fuels of the case.

If the counsel for the Scotch prisoner fail in shoving the irrele-
vancy of the indictment, he must then, and not till then, plead to it„

* See the proceedings in limine in the case of Algernon Sydney, Speech
of Judge Jejj'eri s ; Stat*; Trials.

6

There is more of justice in this course, than in that which requires a
prisoner first to confess himself guilty, and then make his objection
to the instrument that charges him with the crime for which he is
arraigned. The pannel or prisoner having pleaded not guilty, the
trial commences, and the evidence is adduced : here again the superi-
ority of Scottish criminal proceedings is manifest : his counsel are
allowed to comment on the evidence. The English prisoner, on the
closing of the case for the Crown, is always told that now is the time
to address the court ; but how few of this class of persons are capable
ly habit, by education, or by talent, of availing themselves of the
opportunity ! To unravel the web of a false accusation, deliberately
formed vtith the aid of practised legal chicanery, to contrast the con-
flicting points of evidence, to demonstrate the mistakes of some, and to
expose the perjuries of others, require, in most cases, if not aprofes~
sional education and experience in courts of justice, at least more tact
than is to be expected from the prisoner at the bar, who labours too
under the great disadvantage of a situation, embarrassing to most, and
painful to all. In this respect, then, the English prisoner is but little
benefited by his permission to address the court. In Scotland they
manage these things better. The counsel for the crown takes the lead,
at this stage of the proceedings, and commentsupon the evidence ; after-
wards the prisoner's counsel states his views of the case, and does alt that
which it is worse than ridiculous to expect from the class of people who
are placed at the bar of a court of justice. The Lord Chief Justice
Clerk then recapitulates the evidence, commenting, if necessary, upon
the arguments of the opposing counsel, and the case goes to the jury,
who decide by a majority of opinions, and not, as in England, by a
unanimity of opinion among twelve individuals.

The peculiar advantages which the Scotch proceedings possess over
the English, will be quickly perceived in the following details of the
trial of wretches, who seem scarcely to haw deserved any benefit
whatever.

7

T RIAL

OF WILLIAM BURKE AND HELEN M'DOUGAL,

FOR MURDER-
high COURT OF JUSTICIARY,

Wednesday, December 24th., 1828 :

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE CLERK, AND
LORDS PIT M ILLY, MEADOWBANK, AND MACKENZIE.

Counsel fob the Crown. — The Lord Advocate (Sir William
Rae, Bart.); Mr. Alison, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Dundas.

Solicitor. — Mr. James Tytler.

Counsel for Burke. — The Dean of Faculty, Mr. Robertson,
Mr. Napier, and Mr. Milne.

Counsel for M'Dougal.— Mr. Cockburn, Mr. M'Neill, Mr. Bruce,

and Mr. Patton.

Solicitors. — Messrs. Beveridge and Kinnear.

No trial in the memory of any man now living has excited so deep,
universal, and (we may almost add) appaling an interest, as that of
William Burke and his female associate, which commenced at ten
o'clock on Wednesday forenoon, and lasted till ten o'clock the follow-
ing day. So early as seven o'clock on Wednesday a considerable crowd
had assembled in the Parliament Square, and around the doors of the
Court ,* and numerous applications for admission were made to subordin-
ate functionaries — but in vain. The regulations previously made were
most rigorously observed ; while a large body of Police which was in
attendance, maintained the utmost order, and kept the avenues to the
Court unobstructed. The members of the faculty and of the society
of writers to the signet were admitted precisely at nine ; and thus,
with the jurymen impannelled, the Court became at once crowded in
every part.

About twenty minutes before ten o'clock, the prisoners, William
Burke and Helen M'Dougal, were placed at the bar. The male pri-
soner, has stated himself to be a native of Ireland. He is a man rather
below the middle size, but stoutly made, and of a determined, though
not peculiarly sinister expression of countenance. The contour of his
face, as well as the features, are decidedly Milesian. It is round with
high cheek-bones, — grey eyes a good deal sunk in the head, — a short
snubbish nose, — and a round chin ; but altogether of a small cast.

WILLIAM BURKE.

liic hair and whiskers, which are of a light sandy colour, comported
well with the make of the head and the complexion, which is nearly of
the same hue ; and had, upon the whole, what is called in this country,
a tvauyh rather than a ferocious appearance, — though there is a hard-
ness ahout the features, mixed with an expression in the grey twinkling
eyes, far from inviting. His deportment on the wholi was firm and
collected.— The female prisoner is fully of the middle size, but thin
and spare made, though evidently of large hone. Her features are
long and the upper half of her face is out of proportion to the lower.
She was miserably dressed in a printed cotton shawl, and cotton gown :
she stoops considerably in her gait, and as the ordinary look of extreme
poverty and misery common to unfortunate females of the same de-
graded class. We remarked that her hands were singularly white aud
small for her station — Burke entered the court without any visible
signs of trepidation. His companion appeared to be less collected ;
and occasionally, during the day, she sighed deeply, and a bitter smile
twice or thrice played about her lips, — particularly when Hare and his
wife, the socii criminis, were under examination. Towards midnight
she showed symptoms of lassitude, and at intervals leaned upon her
companion's shoulder. Both seemed to attend very closely to the
proceedings.

The Court met at precisely a quarter past ten. The Judges present
were, the Right Honourable the Lord Chief Justice Clerk, and
Lonns Pitmally, Meabowbank, and Mackenkie. The prisoners hav-
ing been railed,

HELEN M'DOUGAL.

The Lord Chief Justice — William Burke, and Helen M'Dougal,
pay attention to the indictment that is now to be read against you.

Mr. Patrick Robertson — I object to the reading of the indictment.
It contains charges which I hope to be able to show your Lordships
are incompetent, and the reading of the whole of the libel would tend
to prejudice the prisoners at the bar.

The Lord Chief Justice — I am unaccustomed to this mode of pro-
cedure. It depends upon the Court whether the indictment shall be
read or not.

Mr. Patrick Robertson — Certainly ; but I understand it is not
necessary to read the indictment ; and we object to its being done on
the present occasion.

LordChief Justice — We have found little advantage to result from
the practice recently introduced of not reading the indictment, — as it
has rendered constant explanations necessary, and consumes more time
the one way than the other.

Air. Cockburn — We object to its being read, because it is calculated
to prejudice the prisoner. Our statement is, th^t it contains charges,
the reading of which cannot fail to operate against him, and that these
charges make no legal part of the libel.

Lord Mkadowbank. — I am against novelties j I am against interfer-
ing with the discretion of the Court.

The indictment was then read as follows

" William Burke and Helen M'Dougal, both present prisoners in
the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, you are indicted and accused at the instance

10

of Sir Wm.Rae, of St. Catherine's, Baronet, his Majesty's Advocate for
his Majesty's interest ; That albeit by the laws of fhis and every other
well governed realm, murder is a crime of an heinous nature, and seve-
rely punishable. Yet true it is, and of verity, that you the said VVm.
Burke and Helen M'Dougal are both and each, or one or other of you,
guilty of the said crime, actor or art and part ; In so far as, on one or
other of the days between the 7th and I6th days of April 1828, or on
one or other of the days of that month, or of March immediately pre-
ceding, or of May immediately following, within the house in Gibb's
Close, Canongate, Edinburgh, then and now or lately in the occupa-
tion of Constantine Burke* then and now or lately scavenger in the
employment of the Edinburgh Police establishment, you the said
William Burke did wickedly and feloniously, place or lay your body or
person, or part thereof, over or upon the breast or person and face of
Mary Patterson or Mitchell, then or recently before that time, or
formerly preceding, with Issabella Burnet, or Worthington, then and
now or lately residing in Leith-Street, in or near Edinburgh, when
she the said Mary Patterson or Mitchell was lying in the said house in
a state of intoxication, did by the pressure thereof, and by covering
her mouth and nose with your body or person, and forcibly compress-
ing her throat with your hands, and forcibly keeping her down, not-
withstanding her resistance, or in some other way to the Prosecutor
unknown, preventing her from breathing, suffocate or strangle her ;
and the said Mary Patterson or Mitchell was thus, by the said means
or part thereof, or by some other means or violence, the particulars of
which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly bereaved of life by
you the said William Burke , and this you did with the wicked afore-
thought intent of disposing of, or selling the body of the said Mary
Patterson or Mitchell* when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon,
or some person in the employment of a physician or sinrgeop, as a
subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious intent
to the Prosecutor unknown. (2) Further, on one or other of the
days, between the 5th and 26th days of October, 1828, or on one or
other of the days of that month, or of September immediately pre-
ceeding, or of November immediately following, within the house
situated in Tanner's Close, Portsburgh, or WesterPortsburgh, in or near
Edinburgh, then and now or lately in the occupation of William Haire
or Hare, then and now or lately labourer, you the said William Burke
did wickedly and feloniously attack and assault James Wilson, commonly
called or known by the name of Daft Jamie, then or lately residing in the
house of James Downie, then and now or lately porter, and then and
now or lately residing in Stevenlaw's Close, High-street, Edinburgh, and
did leap or throw yourself upon him, when the said James Wilson was
lying in the said house ; and he having sprung up, you did struggle with
him* and did bring him to the ground, and you did place or lay your
body or person, or part thereof, over or upon the person or body and
face of the said James Wilson, and did by the pressure thereof, and by
covering his mouth and nose with your person or body, and forcibly
keeping him down and compressing his mouth, nose, and throat, not-
withstanding every resistance on his part, and thereby, or in some other
manner to the Prosecutor unknown, preventing him from breathing,
suffocate or strangle him ; and the said James Wilson was thus by the
said means, or part of them, or by some other means or violence, the
particulars of which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly bereaved
of life and murdered by you the said William Burke ; and this you did
with the wicked aforethought intent of disposing of or selling the body

11

of the said James Wilson, when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon,
or to some person in the employment of a physician or surgeon, as a
subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious in-
tent or purpose to the Prosecutor unknown. (3) Further, on Friday
the 31st day of October, 1828, or on one or other of the days of
that month, or of September immediately preceding, or of November
immediately following, within the house then or lately occupied
by you the said Wm. Burke, situated in that street of Portsburgh, or
Wester Portsburgh, in or near Edinburgh, which runs from the
Grass Market of Edinburgh to Main Point, in or near Edinburgh,
and on the north side of the said street, and having an access thereto
by a trance or passage, entering from the street last above libelled,
and having also an entrance from a court or back court on the north
thereof, the name of which is to the Prosecutor unknown, you the said
William Burke and Helen M'Dougal, did both and each, or one or
other of you, wickedly and feloniously place or lay your bodies, or
persons, or part thereof, or the body or person, or part thereof of
one or other of you, over or upon the person or body and face of
Madgy, or Margery, or Mary M'Gonegal, or Duftie, or Campbell, or
Docherty, then or lately residing in the house of Roderick Stewart
or Stuart, then and now or lately labourer, and then and now or
lately residing in the Plcasance, in or near Edinburgh, when she
the said Madgy, or Margery, or Mary M'Gonegal, or Dutlie, or
Campbell, or Docherty, was lying on the ground, and did, by the
pressure thereof, and by covering her mouth aud the rest of her faco
with your bodies or persons, or the body or person of one or other
of you, and by grasping her by the throat, and keeping her mouth
and nortrils shut, with your hands^ and thereby, or in some other
way to the Prosecutor unknown, preventing her from breathing,
suffocate or strangle her ; and the said Madgy, or Margery, or Mary
M'Gonegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Docherty, was thus, by the
said niCcins^ or pa rt| thereof, or by some other means or violence,
the particulars of which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly
bereaved of life, and murdered by you the said William Burke, and
you the said Helen M'Dougal, or one or other of you ; and thus you,
both and eaeb, or one or other of you, did, with the wicked afore-
thought intent of disposing of or selling the body of the said Madgy,
or Margery, or Mary M'Gonegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Doc-
herty, when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon, or to some
person in the employment of a physician or surgeon, as a subject for
dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious intent or pur-
pose to the Prosecutor unknown. And you the said William Burke,
having been taken before George Tait, Esq. Sheriff-substitute ofthe
shire of Edinburgh, you did in his presence, at Edinburgh, emit
and subscribe five several declarations of the dates respectively
following, viz. :— The 3rd, 10th, 19th, and 29th days of November,
and 4lh day of December, 1828; And you, the said Helen M'Dou-
gal, having been taken before the said Sheriff-substitute, you did in
his presence, at Edinburgh, emit two several declarations, one upon
the 3rd and another on the 10th days of November, 1828: which
declarations were each of them respectively subscribed in your pre-
sence, by the said Sheriff-substitute, you having declared you could
not write ; which declarations being to be used in evidence against
each of you by whom the same were respectively emitted ; as also
the skirt of a gown ; as also a petieoat; as also a brass snuff-box,

12

and a snuff-spoon, a black coat, a black waistcoat, a pair of mole-
skin trowsers, and a cotton handkerchief or neckcloth, to all of
which sealed labels are now attached, being to be used in evidence
against you the said William Burke; as also a coarse linen sheet, a
coarse pillow-case, a dark printed cotton gown, a red striped cotton
bed-gown, to which a sealed label is now attached ; as also a wooden
box; as also a plan entitled "Plan of Houses in Wester Portsburgh
and Places adjacent," and bearing to be dated Edinburgh, 20th
November, 1828, and to be signed by James Braidwood, 22, Society,
being all to be used in evidence against both and each of you, the said
William Burke and Helen M'Dougal, at your trial, will for that
purpose be in due time lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the High
Court of Justiciary, before which you are about to be tried, that
you may have an opportunity of seeing the same. All of which, or
part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an Assize, or
admitted by the respective judicial confessions of you the said
William Burke and Helen M'Dougal, &c. you ought to be punished
with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like
crimes in all time coming.

Dean of Faculty. — We have given in separate defences, which
may as well be now read, beginning with the defence for the male
prisoner.

The pefence for William Bur/re was then read as follows :-—

The prisoner submits that he is not bound to plead to or
to be tried upon a libel, which not only charges him with
three unconnected murders, committed each at a different
time, and at a different place, but also combines his trial
with that of another prisoner, who is not even alleged to have
had any concern with two of the offences of which he is ac-
cused. Such an accumulation of offences and prisoners is
contrary to the general and the better practises of the Court.
It is inconsistent with the right principle ; and indeed, so far
as the prisoner can discover, is altogether unprecedented.
It is totally unnecessary for the ends of public justice, and
greatly distracts and prejudices the accused in their defence.
It is, therefore, submitted,that the libel is completely vitiated
by this accumulation, and cannot be maintained as contain-
ing a proper criminal charge. On the merits of the case, the
prisoner has only to state that he is not guilty, and that he
rests his defence on a denial of the facts set forth. in the libel.

The defence for Helen M^Dougal was next read as fol-
lows : —

If it shall be decided that the prisoner is obliged to an-
swer to this indictment at all, her answer to it is that she is
not guilty, and that the Prosecutor cannot prove the facts on
which his charge rests. But she humbly submits that she is
not bound to plead to it. She is accused of one murder com-
mitted in October, 1828, in a house in Portsburgh, and of no

13

other offence. Yet she is placed in an indictment along with
a different person, who is accused of other two murders, each
of them committed at a different time and at a different place,
— it not being alleged that she had any connection with
either of these crimes. This accumulation of prisoners and
of offences is not necessary for public justice, and exposes
the accused to intolerable prejudice, and is not warranted, so
far as can be ascertained, even by a single precedent.

Mr. Robertson then addressed the Court in support of the defences.
.In this indictment there were two prisoners named, but which two pri-
soners did not appear on the face of it to have any connection with
each-other. The major proposition contained a simple charge of mur-
der, without specifying any aggravation. In the minor proposition,
however, there, were three distinct and totally unconnected charges of
murder. The first was against Burke alone, and was charged to have
been committed in April last, in a house in the Canongate. But it
was not stated that he had any accomplices. He was the sole person
charged with that offence. It appeared, indeed, from the description
of the crime, that he was charged " with the wicked aforethought pur-
pose and intent of disposing of and selling the body, when murdered,
as a subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious
purpose to the Prosecutor unknown." But, on the one hand, there
'was no aggravation laid on the major proposition ; yet on the other
the Prosecutor did not confine himself to one species of intent, but
libelled two —the intent to sell the body to the surgeons, and some sort
of vatnie intent to the Prosecutor unknown. — The second article in the
indictment charged another murder, alleged to have been committed
in the month of October, in a place called Tanner's Close. In this
charge also William Burke is the. only person accused of that offence,
and the intent laid is the same as in the former instance. — Then there
"was a charge of a third murder, committed at a different place and
time, viz. at a house in Portsburgh, on the 31st October, — in which
charge both William Burke and Helen M'Dougal were indicted ; and
after describing the offence, the intent libelled is the same as in the
two former cases. Thus we had three murders charged against the
"prisoners; two against Burke alone, and one against Burke in con-
junction with M'Dougal, — all of which were committed at different
times and in different places, without any connection whatever be-
tween them ; and these charges were laid without any aggravation.
Then the five declarations by Burke, and two by M.'Dougal, were also
libelled on, together with eight articles to be adduced as evidence
against the former, and six against both ; and in addition to all this,
they were served with a list of fifty-five witnesses, by which these dif-
ferent and totally unconnected charges were to be proved. Now the
question was, whether this charge, involving such an accumulation of
unconnected offences, was consistent with our practice, with the
humane principles of our law, and with that sound and proper dis-
cretion to which the Court was not only entitled, but bound to exercise.
But the first and most material point was, whether the prisoners would
sutler prejudice by the mode in which the libel had been framed : for
'if that could be made out, it would justify their Lordships in the exer-
cise of the discretion with which they were entrusted, in separating the
charges, or in selecting one prisoner, and postponing another, accord-

B

14

ing to the circumstances of the case. The question then is, whether
the prisoners would suffer prejudice in going to trial with the libel as
it now stands ? And in considering this, it would be observed that it
was not charged that there was any natural connection between them.
There was certainly none in law ; and with the exception of the mode
of the murder and the intent, there was not the slightest pretence for
saying there was any connection between them. But the intent was
not laid absolutely and peremptorily: it was conditional. Either you
committed these acts with the aforethought purpose and intent of sell-
ing the bodies to the surgeons for dissection, or with some 2>urpose or
intent to the Prosecutor unknown. This would compel the Prose-
cutor to prove that the murder was committed for the purpose of
handing over the bodies to dissection ; but he might also bring in un-
der it a very different purpose or object, — as, for example, that it was
done for the purpose of robbery, or to gratify private revenge.
In the major proposition, however, there was no aggravation ;
and it was not said that there had been any conspiracy, — that these
murders were part of a system,— they were laid as three uncon-
nected offences, committed at different times and places- Now he
prayed their Lordships to keep in mind that murder was not like any
of the other offences which usually occurred in the practice of the
criminals ;— it was one which in every case when brought home to a
prisoner, was visited with the highest punishment of the law ; and there-
fore it, differed from all the offences to which it was sometimes likened,
and required greater caution on the part of those by whom it was to be
tried. As applicable to the case of Burke, however, three murders
were charged ; and this charge was calculated in the most serious de-
gree to prejudice him. Each offence, it might be said, would require
to be supported by its own specific evidence; but it was impossible to
find any jury so dispassionate as not to borrow some light from the one
to enable them to decide on the other; it was impossible for the jury
to separate the evidence in one case from that in another ; it was im-
possible that one murder not proved could be separated from any light
thrown upon it by another not proved, — nay, though neither the one
nor the other might be proved, it might be held, that upon the whole,
from the massing or blending of unconnected acts, enough was made
out to warrant a conviction. Ajid all this was aggravated by the pre-
judice arising from the manner in which the alleged murders are said
to have been committed, and in regard to which so strong a degree of
excitement prevailed in the public mind. Then observe the oppres-
sion in the preparation of the trial ; observe the situation in which the
prisoners were placed. Three murders are charged, with a list of fifty-
five witnesses, besides seven declarations, five by the one, and two by
the other. One set, it might be said, was against one prisoner, and
the other against the other ; — but it was impossible so to separate, or
to analyse the evidence, as not to admit, against the one, evidence
which was calculated to affect the other; and by thus mixing up and
massing together the whole into an unnecessary accumulation of crime,
to come to the same conclusion in regard to both. Look to the case of
Helen M'Dougal, and it will be seen the prejudice must operate still
more strongly against her. She is accused of only one crime ; and it
is not said that she had any connection with the others. But this
charge of murder, committed in the latter end of October, is brought
to trial, combined with two others, committed, one in April, six
months previously, and the other in the beginning of October. Where

15

is this to stop? If the Prosecutor is allowed to proceed in this way,
may he not on the same principle combine ten murders against ten
prisoners, accused of ten different offences, committed in as many dif-
ferent counties ? He submitted that there must be some limitation ;
and the question was, whether the Court could sustain the present
charge, by which one individual, accused of one offence, is mixed up
with another, accused of two, with which she is not alleged to have had
any concern ? Imagine this case. At the end of the indictment,
eight articles were specified against Burke, and six more against Burke
and M'Dougal. Take the first— the skirt of a gown — and suppose it
proved against Burke alone. It could not be adduced as evidence
against Helen M'Dougal. But suppose it was traced into her posses-
sion, and that a witnesses called to prove that it belonged to Mary Pat-
terson or Mitchell. This would be conclusive as to her connection
with Burke. It may be said that the Judge would tell the jury to
strike this out of their notes. This was an easy operation ; but could
they strike it out of their minds ? Then, in what circumstances would
Helen M'Dougal be placed ? An article not libelled against her would
be checkmate to her defence. She would be taken by surprise, — she
would be thrown off her guard ; and although the gown had come fairly
and honestly into her possession, she could produce no evidence to in-
struct the fact. He put this as an illustration. So far as the female
prisoner was concerned it would be fatal. But is this a legal proceed-
ing ? If there be a prejudice existing, the prisoner is entitled to the
fairest possible defence. The more atrocious the offence, the more
guarded and cautious ought to be the modes of procedure. So far,
however, as they could discover from the records of the Court, this was
the first case in which it had been attempted to charge three murders
in the same indictment. There had been several instances of three
persons slain at the same time, as in the Aberdeen riots, by a discharge
of musketry, and in the case where a whole family was poisoned.
These, however, as Mr. Hume observed, were all parts of the same
foul and atrocious offence. But there was no example in the history
of the Court, of combining three unconnected offences against one
person j far less of combining three against one person who was not
alleged to have any connection with two of them, and was only im-
plicated in a third, which had no manner of connection with those
which preceded. Sir George Mackenzie, who would not be suspected
of any partiality to prisoners, laid down the principle most clearly,
that no parties ought to be thus combined in an indictment. — The
learned counsel then referred to the work of Mr. Hume. That learned
mthor treated merely of connected crimes, as robbery and murder.
But no injury was done by this accumulation. They were parts of the
ame foul and atrocious proceedings, and they have a natural and ne-
:essary dependence, and not even an allegation that the prisoners
vere connected. He then proceeded to the consideration of hetero-
geneous charges, as of murder and theft. — Some of those, he said,
vere not cases to be followed at the present day, and he instanced that
>f Walter Buchanan, who was accused of ten different crimes in one
ibel; namely, fire-raising, attempts at fire-raising, attempts to poi-
on, theft, reset of theft, the harbouring, out-hounding, and maintain-
ng of thieves and robbers, sorning and levying black-mail, and killing
nd eating of other people's sheep. Here, however, the Lords re-
slX jtricted the trial to the more special charges. He now came to the
iwe rinciple, and mentioned a case in 1784, when the Lord Advocate did

ft

depart from several of the charges. — Tn conclusion, he referred to the
English practice as illustrative of the principle for which he had been
contending. By the law of England, two felonies may be combined in
one charge against two separate prisoners; but it is usual for the Judge
in his discretion to call upon the Prosecutor to make his election, and
to proceed with a specific charge against one individual. In point of
law they may be combined, but the Judges in their discretion separate
them ; and for this reason, among others, that the combination would
prejudice prisoners in their challenge of the jury.

The Lord Advocate complimenting the learned counsel who
had just concluded on the able manner in which he had opened the
objections submitted to the consideration of the Court, stated that
lie thought them ill-founded. His learned friend mixed up two
offences together. His first objection was to bringing two prisoners
to trial on the same indictment, and his second to charging three
different crimes in that indictment. He would deal very shortly
with the first. The woman was charged as having been concerned
with the man in one of the three murders. But this was sanctioned
by the law of the land. He put her in the indictment, that she might
ngt be prejudiced. If she had been put into a separate indictment
the public would have known the whole evidence before she had
been put upon her trial, and the prisoner would have had the best
possible reason to complain. This would have been the case had he
first brought the man to trial, and afterwards the woman, adducing
against the same, or nearly the same evidence, which had previously
been adduced against the man. It was to obviate this, and to pre-
vent her from being prejudiced, that he had put her in the same
indictment. God forbid, said his Lordship, that any person holding
the situation I do, should do any thing to prejudice a prisoner on
his trial. The very contrary motive had guided him ; but if he pro-
ceeded not against the woman to-day, he would ten days hence, when
she could not insist on that which she now says will prejudice her.
The libel charged three separate acts, and in the major proposition
the crime specified was murder without any aggravation. Thes
murders were detached as having taken place within the last six
months; but they were all committed in Edinburgh, and are all
charged as having been perpetrated with the same intent, w hich is
no aggravation. Murder, indeed, could hardly admit of aggravation
When a prosecutor libels a positive intent, he is tied down to that
and there is no alternative. These cases were all of the same de
scription - all murder, and all committed with the same intent. He
admitted, that looking to the proceedings of the Criminal Court, it
wras trie first case of three murders combined in one indictment; but
it was a case unprecedented in the annals of this or of any other
civilized country. — Therewere numerous examples, however, where
different charges were combined in the same libel. The passage
quoted from Sir George Makenzie did not apply to the case before
the Court. It referred to a case of a nature totally different. He
then quoted Hume, II. 166, and maintained, upon this authority
that the crimes charged, being all of the same name and species
might properly be included in the same indictment. It would
indeed be dreadful if a prisoner, after having committed three mar
ders, could only be tried for one of them; Mr. Hume referred to the
cuse of James In g I is, tried upon three charges of horse -stealing, cacl

17

of which, if proved, involved a capital punishment. — Now, would
not every argument which had been employed against the present
libel apply to such a charge ? Again, two acts of highway robbery
were charged in the same indictment, any one of which would have
been sufficient if proved, to lead lo a capital conviction. The whole
tenor of our practice confirmed this mode of procedure ; and, if the
contrary obtained, — if charges of the same nature and description
were put in separate indictments, — prisoners would be exposed to
the intolerable hardship of undergoing trial day after day — a hard-
ship which he conceived would be incomparably greater than any
that could possibly arise from the practice now complained of. He
then referred to the case of Nairne and Ogilvie. Here it had been
objected that there was a cumulatio actionum, but the objection
had been repelled. His Lordship then cited the case of James
Morton, tried at the Glasgow Circuit in 1823, on four separate acts;
of Donaldson Buchanan tried for stouthrief, housebreaking, and
theft, (all separate acts) ; of Beaumont tried at Aberdeen in 1827,
upon no less than nine separate acts of forgery. His Lordship
then quoted the case of Surridge and Dempsey, indicted for two
separate acts of murder, committed indeed at the short interval of
an hour, but still, in all respects, completely separate acts. Upon
the strength of these consecutive authorities, all of which went to
support the principle for which he contended, his Lordship submit-
ted that the objection ought to be repelled.

The Dean of Faculty — We believe that the Lord Advocate had
no object in view but public justice in bringing this case forward.
The charges are totally disconnected. One murder is committed in
a house occupied by the prisoner; another in another house, not bis
own ; and a third in a different house, and in connexion with a dif-
ferent individual. Supposing the Crown to fail in proving the two
first charges, will the jury not be led into a suspicion that an indi-
vidual accused of such monstrous crimes must be guilty ? Is this
not a prejudice ? This man is tormented and perplexed on five se-
parate examinations, on three separate and confused charges. Is he
not thus prejudiced ? He may be prejudiced by the challenges of
the jurymen. The justice of the case is in our favour. In the case
of housebreaking, and other crimes of a similar degree of enormity,
may not the libel be restricted ? But was it ever heard of, that a pub-
lic prosecutor restricted the libel in a case of murder ? The case is
absolutely without precedent ; and the antiquated authorities in
analogous cases must go for nothing. Before sitting down I would
direct your lordships' attention to the objection : and, laying aside
the authorities, I say I would call upon you, in the exercise of your
prerogative of a sound discretion, not to allow this prisoner to be
arraigned upon more charges than one ; and I am borne out in ask-
ing your lordships, upon the authority of the English judges, who
doit every day. [The Dean wound up an eloquent argument, and
the judges proceeded to consult before delivering their opinions.]

Lord Pjtmiixy — The Court is peculiarly circumstanced in being
called upon to decide an incidental point before the case is begun.
Counsel for the prisoners may urge the point at an after stage in his
comments, and the counsel for the Crown may, in like manner, advert
to it. The Court must come to consider the case calmly and dispas-
sionately. The first point is the woman being associated with the man

t

18

In the same indictment, and I am glad the Lord Advocate lias adopted
the course with regard to her. The second, is the man being charged
with three separate murders, committed at three different times, and in
different places. I can entertain no doubt on this point. I confess I
was struck with the indictment when I saw it, and made myself master
of the authorities before coining here. But there is a case in point to
which none of the counsel have referred, which was tried before me at
Jedburgh, where three murders were charged in one libel, and the
.prisoner was convicted aud executed; so I have no doubt that there
remains the question of discretion, and the Court is not called upon to
interfere unless requested. The Advocate must have three trials if he
fail in one ; and he gains advantages by his very failure, in acquiring
knowledge, how to bring the next case to trial. I well remember the
case at Aberdeen, in which I was counsel. Some people were indicted
for shooting several others at the instance of a private prosecutor; and
they being acquitted, the Public Prosecutor raised an indictment,
charging the same individuals with another murder, which created the
greatest outcry in the country. I am of opinion, however, that in the
exercise of discretion, and acting upon the responsibility which tiie
prisoners' counsel must undertake, we should direct the Public Prose-
cutor to- proceed with the charges one by one.

Lord Meadowbank — I concur in all that my brother has said. If
we pay "regard to the objection of the prisoners' counsel, it would shake,
to the centre the consistency of the proceedings of this Court. I am
astonished that no allusion has been made to the case of Murdochson
and another, who were tried upon several charges of sheep-stealing, at
different times, and different places. 1 entertain no doubt that this
indictment is well laid. On the question of discretion, the prisoners
have made their choice ; and on the heads of their counsel the respon-
sibility must rest. Tins indictment is not to be questioned. We shall
ait here and try one charge after another till it is exhausted.

Lord Mackenzie — The Court have a discretion, but they are en-
titled to consider whether the prisoners are to be benefited by granting
what they propose. I, therefore, give my concurrence to what has
been proposed.

Loni) Chief Justice — I consider the indictment properly framed.
I>urke is accused of three different crimes, all of the same nature, within
the city of Edinburgh or its liberties. Mr. Hume refers to an indict-
ment, charging a variety of different crimes, and thereby embarrassing
a prisoner in his defence. In concurring with your lordships, I think
that the crown counsel is entitled to select any of the three charges he
thinks proper, and proceed to trial.

The Lord Advocate — who had previously stated his determination
to desert the diet pro loco et tempore against Helen M'Dougal, now
said, — I shall proceed upon the last charge in this indictment, that for
the murder of the woman Campbell or Duffle or Dogherty, which ap-
plies equally to both, and, therefore, the woman must be detained and
put upon her trial along with the man.

The Lord Chief Justice now asked the prisoners if they were
guilty or not guilty cf the 3rd\ charge — when they both answered
" Not Guilty,"

19

The following Jury icere then chosen, viz. :

Nicol Allan, Manager of the Hercules

Insurance Company, Edinburgh
John Paton, builder, Great King-st.

Edinburgh
James Frfench, builder, London street,

Edinbu rgh
Peter M'Gregor, merchant, Castle-st.

Edinburgh
William Bonar, hanker, Abercromby

I'lace, Edinburgh
James Banks, agent, Cassillis Place,

Leith Walk

James Kfelliss, merchant, Blair-street,

Edinburgh
John Mc Fie, merchant, Leith
Thomas Barker, hrewer, Leith
Henry Fenwick, grocer, Dunbar
Darid Brash, grocer, Coal Hill, Leith
David Hunter, ironmonger, Jamaica-
' street, Edinburgh
Robert Jeffry, engraver, Milne-square*

Edinburgh
Willi. im Hell, grocer, Dunbar
William Robertson, Bar.k-st. Edinburgh

Air. Braidn-ood, of the Fire Establishment, identified a plan
drawn by him of some houses in West Port, the residence of Burke,
and scene of the alleged murder.

Mary Stewart remembers a young man of the name of Michael
Campbell coming to her house some time after the harvest — it
was before Martinmas. He remained there about two months, and
left the house on the Monday before the fast day — the Monday of the
fast week. She was lying at the Infirmary at this time ; but on rc-
tuining home she found a woman in her house who, Campbell said,
was his mother. She paid she had come in search of her son, — giving
her name Madgy or Margery Campbell, and said the name of her
former husband was Duifie; she said she came from Glasgow. Wit-
ness came out of the Infirmary on the fast night, ai:d the woman left
the house on the following morning, Friday, the 31st October. It was
Hallowe'en. She said when she went out that she was going to see
after her son, who had left the house some time befoie. Knows
.Charles M'Lauchlin, who is a witness, and who slept with Campbell's
son. In so far as witness knows, M'Lauehlin and Mrs Campbell
went out together ; and she never saw her again until she saw her body
in the Police Office. Witness thinks she left the house between seven
and eight in the morning; but she has since been informed it was far-
ther on in the day. It was the Sabbath following that she saw her
dead body in the Police Office ; had no difficulty in recognising it.
The woman left the house dressed in a black bombazet petticoat, an
old much-patched stripped gown next 3ier waistcoat, and dark printed
gown with short sleeves, and open before, and in some places sewed
with white thread. Identifier the rags which the poor woman had
.worn when she left witness's house.

By the Court. — Supposes Mrs. Campbell to have been between 40
and 50. Shs was a little broad set woman, and appeared in good
health. Never saw her the worse of liquor.

Charles M'Lauehlin resided in October last in the house of the
preceding witness ; and recollects Michael Campbell being there for
five weeks about that time. He left it on the 30th. A woman whd
•was represented as Campbell's mother came to the house while her son
was there. Mrs. Stewart was then in the Infirmary. The woman
gave her maiden name as Margery M'Gonegal. She was called after a
first husband, and sometimes Duflie, after a second husband. Witness
had kno'.vn her in Donegal in Ireland. She remained some da\s at
Stewart's, and went away the last time on Friday the 31st October,
between the hours of nine and ten o'clock in the morning. Witness
parted with her at the foot of St. Mary's Wyud. She did not say

20

•where she was going to ; for she had lost sight of her son," and intend-
ed to leave town. She had come to town in search of her son. She
was then in good health, and had been so all the while. She had been
in Stewart's — she was sober and seemed to be of sober habits. Did
not think that she had any money ; but never heard her complain of
want, nor did he know that she begged. Her son paid for her lodgi ng.
He never saw her again in life, but saw her dead body in the Police
Office on the 2d of November. Knew the body. Never heard her
called by the name of Docherty.

William Noble, shop-boy to Mr. Rymer, grocer, Portsburgh,
knows the prisoner Burke ; has seen him come about the shop. Knows
a man of the name of Hare also. Recollects of a woman coming to
the shop on Friday morning, the 3 1st of October, about nine o'clock,
asking charity. Burke was in the shop at the time. The woman was
a little woman, middle-aged, but does not recollect her dress. Burke
asked her name. She said it was Docherty ; and he replied that
she was some relation of his mothers ; but he did not say what his
mother's name was. Does not recollect if they appeared acquainted
when they first met. Burke took the woman away with him, saying
he would give her breakfast. Saw Burke again in the forenoon, buy-
ing some groceries ; and on the Saturday he came back between five
and six in the evening, and purchased a box — an old tea-box. The
old tea-box shown in Court was similar to the one sold to Burke. The
box was not then paid, and has not yet been paid. It was taken away
by Mrs. Hare. Burke said when he bought it that he would send for
it. She came and got it away within half an hour after it was pur-
chased by Burke.

/ Ann Black, or Connaway, lives in Wester Portsburgh. Her
Jiouse consists of one room ; goes down a few steps and through a pas-
age to it. The door to her house is the first come to, and a little far-
her in there is a door on the same side, which leads into another pas -
sage, at the end of which there is another door that leads to a room
inclosed by two doors. Burke, the prisoner, occupied that inner room
in October. The other prisoner, M'Dougal, lived with Burke. There
is a house on the left hand of the first passage, occupied by a Mr. Law.
Has seen Hare and his wife coming about Burke's. During the last
week of October a man named Gray and his wife lived a few days in
Burke's house. On Friday the 31st October (Hallowe'en),, about
mid-day, saw Burke pass along the passage, going inward, with a
woman following him. She was a stranger, whom witness had never
before seen. Mrs. Law was sitting with witness. In the afternoon,
about three o'clock, witness went into Burke's house, and found the
woman whom she had seen go in with Burke sitting at the fire supping
porridge and milk. She had her head tied up in a handkerchief, and
no gown ; they said they had been washing her mutch and gown for
her. Is not sure of her having on any thing but a shift and the hand-
kerchief. Witness said to M'Dougal, " I see you have got a stranger?"
and she replied, they had got a friend of her husband's, a Highland
woman. Had no farther conversation at that time, and saw nothing
to induce her to suppose that the woman was drunk. Some time after
dark, M'Dougal came aud asked witness to take care of her door till
she returned. There was no person in the house, and soon after wit-
ness's husband, who was sitting at the fire, said he thought there was
somebody gone into Burke's. She in consequence took a light, and

21

went in, when she saw no one there but the woman, who came to-,
wards the dour, being then the worse for drink. She said that she was
going to St. Mary's Wyndto meet a boy who had promised to bring;
her word from her son ; and asked the name of the land of houses,
that she might find her way back, as she had no money to pay for a
bed. Witness told her not to go away, as she would not get her way
back ; and she did not go. She told witness that Burke, whom she called
DocJierty, had promised her a bed and supper. She came into witness's
house, and had a good deal of conversation with witness's husband
about Ireland, and the army, in which he had been. She said, Doch-
erty would give her a bed and supper, and she was to stay for a fort-
night. She was the worse for liquor ; and insisted on calling Burke,
Docherly, as that was the name lie called himself to lier. She re-
mained in the house about an hour, and while there, the prisoner
(M'Dougal) and Hare and his wife came in. Mrs. Hare had a bot-
Ue, and Hare insisted on drinking; they all tasted, and witness's
husband gave them a dram. The stranger partook of it, and so
did M'Dougal. They were merry. Hare, Campbell, and M'Dougal
were dancing. The woman was quite well ; she had scratched her
foot against Hare's shoe, hut otherwise she was in good health.
Mrs. Campbell remained in the house a long time, refusing to go
until Burke came home ; he had been out the most part of the night.
Witness insisted on her going away, but she would not until Burke
should come ki j and on witness observing Burke passing to his
own house, between 10 and 11, she informed Mrs. Campbell, who
rose and followed him into his house. Witness slept none from the
disturbance in Burke's house, which commenced after Mrs. Camp-
bell Went in. The disturbance was as if Burke and Hare were
fighting. Witness got up between three and four, to make her hus-
band's breakfast, but again went to bed, and rose about eight
o'clock. The ii rat thing she then heard was Hare calling for Mrs.
Law, who did not answer him. A little while after, a girl, whose
name she understood to be Patterson, came and asked for her hus-
band • it turned out thai it was Burke she wanted. Witness direct-
ed the girl into Burke's. M'Dougal came into witness's house, and
said William ('Burke) wanted to speak to her. She went in ac-
cordingly, and found there M'Dougal, Burke, Mrs. Law, and a
young man called Broggan. Burke had a bottle of spirits in his
hand. He iillcd a glass, and then dashed the spirits upon a bed.
Witness asked bin), why he wasted the spirits ? and he replied he
wanted to finish it and get more. Witness asked M'Dougal, what
had become of the old woman ? when she replied, that Burke and
her had been too friendly together, and that she, M'Dougal, had
kicked her out of the house, — asking, at the same time, " Did you
hear it ?'' Burke a. ked if witness had heard the dispute between
him and Hare ? and said, No; he added, it was just a lit of drink,
and they were friends enough now. They were all quiet before she
got up to make her husband's breakfast, and she heard no more till
after eight o'clock. Burke's wife sung asoug while w itness was in
the house. Observed a bundle of straw at the bottom of the bed ;
it had lain there greater part of the summer. Witness left Burke's
a little after ten. Was there again in the afternoon ; was asked in
by Mrs. Gray ; Burke, Broggan, and M'Dougal were there. At a
later hour, near eight o'clock, went in again with Gray's wife, to

22

see something she had told her of ; saw nothing-, and was so fright-
ened that she turned back again — the straw was turned. Before
this Mrs. Dougal said, Gray's wife had stolen things, and wished
witness to look after her door because it would not lock. Did not
see Burke till far on in the night; it was then reported that he had
murdered a woman, and her husband told him there was a noise
about it. Mrs. Burke laughed very loud, and she said he (Burke)
defied all Scotland j, for he had done nothing he eared about, and
no one breathing could impeach them with an}- thing that was bad.
Burke said he would go and find out the man who said he had
done wrong j and just as he went into the passage the police appre-
hended him.

Cross-examined — Said he was going to seek the man (Gray) who
had said he had committed murder, and met with the police in the
passage, when he returned into the house.

By the Court — Witnesses husband told Burke that Gray had seen a
corpse in the house, and had gone for the police ; and Burke said he
would go and find him.

By a Juryman — The cause of her fright was hearing of a murder that
Gray had spoken of.

Janet Lawrie or Law, lived, in October last, in the same passage
with the prisoner and Connaway, and his wife. Remembers being
in Connaway 's house about two o'clock on the 31st October ; and of
seeing Burke in the passage, and a little woman following him. They
went into Burke's house. Hare and his wife were in Burke's that
evening between six and seven o'clock. The little woman was there
likewise. Witness remained in Burke 's house about twenty minutes.
She went to bed about half-past nine o'clock, and during the night
heard the noise of dancing and merriment, and of people scuffling.
The noise was great; but she was not sensible of any other voice but
Burke's. This noise lasted for some time, and she fell asleep. In the
morning Mrs. Burke came in for the loan of a pair of bellows, and
asked if witness had heard Burke and Hare fighting. Witness asked
what she had done with the little woman during the fight; and she
answered, she had kicked her to the door, because she had been using
too much freedom with William, meaning Burke. She went away,
and returned about nine ; this conversation having taken place about
eight o'clock. Mrs. Burke asked witness to go into her house, which
she did, and found there Burke, Broggan, Hare, and M'Dougal ; and
before she left the house Gray and his wife came in. Burke took up a
bottle which had some spirits in it, and sprinkled them on the ceiling
and about the bed, saying he did so because none would drink. At
the foot of the bed there was a good deal of straw lying ; it had lain
thei e for somejtime. The circumstances of which she spoke took
place on Saturday morning, and Burke was taken into custody that
evening. Was shown a dead body next day (Sunday) in the police
office, and recognised it as the body of the same woman she had seen
alive on Friday night.

Cross-examined — The straw at the foot of the bed was sometimes
used as a bed ; the Grays had lain upon it.

Hugh Alston, grocer, West Port, lives in the same land in which
Burke lived. His is the flat above the shops, and Burke's was the one
below them. Heard a noise on the 31st October, about eleven o'clock,
as he was going along the passage that leads to his own house. His

I

23

attention was arrested by theories of a woman, of *i Murder.5* Went
down to the flat on which Burke's house was, and halted within a yard
of Conha way's door, where he listened* Heard the noise of two men as
of wrangling and struggling, and the woman crying " Murder,' but not
in such a manner as to make him consider her in imminent danger.
The cry continued for about a minute, and then he heard a sound as if
a person were strangling; such a cry as an inferior animal might give
when strangled. He could not distinguish between the sound whether
it was that of a human being or a brute. Heard no noise of struggling.
Heard the female voice that cried " Murder," call for the police, and
she appeared at the same time as if striking her hand on the door.
Witness went in search of a policeman, but could not iind one. Had
often been alarmed by cries, and was afraid of fire, but never thought
of murder. He returned a second time, and heard the sound of the
men's voices, who were speaking in a lower tone. The cries of " mur-
der" had ceased, and he returned to his own house. He might have
heard feet moving on the floor, but could not say the sound was louder.
Was about three yards from the door that leads to Burke's house, wrheu
he heard the remarkable sounds. On the evening of the Saturday, he
heard of a body being found, which enabled him to fix the circum-
stance on his memory.

Cross-examined — Did not suppose that the remarkable sounds
came from the woman who struck on the door, and called for the
police.

By the Lord Advocate — The words were, he thought, " Police *
for God's sake, there is murder here." This was shouted at the time
the strange sounds were uttered.

By the Dean of Faculty — The sound of the stroke Was upon the
outer door. He had since tried the experiment ; a person had gone
and struck upon the inner door, which produced a very different sound
indeed.

By a Juryman-* Was sure that the cry of u Murder" proceeded
from Burke's house.

Elizabeth Patterson lives in Wester Portsburgh. Burke came up
to her mother's house on Friday the 3 1st October, about ten o'clock,
and asked for her brother David, who not being in, he went away.
Next morning she went, at her brother's desire, to ask for Burke, and
got a direction to his house from Mrs. Law.

David Patterson, keeper of Dr. Knox's museum, lives at 20, West
Port. Knows the prisoner by sight. Witness went home on the 31st
October, about 12 o'clock, and found Burke knocking at his door. He
said to witness he wished to see him at his house, and he accordingly
went there with him. Found in it two men, including Burke ; there
might be more, but he did not recollect of more. There were also two
women. After he went in Burke said he had procured something for
the doctor, and pointed to the head of a bed whe<e some straw was
lying. The observation wras made in an under voice, but not in a
whisper. He might be as close to him as to touch him. No observa-
tion was made by any of the other persons. Nothing was showu to
witness ; but he understood, when Burke said he had procured some-
thing for the doctor, that he alluded to a dead body. His words were,
that he had procured something, or there was something for the doctor,
and he used the expression " to-morrow." There was a sufficiency of
straw in the corner to conceal a dead body. M'Dougal was one of the

24

females, and he thought he would know the other. Had no further
conversation with Burke about what he had got for the doctor. Wit-
ness sent his sister, about nine o'clock next morning, for Burke. ( Wit-
ness was here siiown Hare and his wife, whom he identified as the
other persons that were in the house along with Burke on the 3 1st Oc-
tober). Burke came next morning about nine, and witness said, if lie
had anything to give to Doctor Knox, to take it to;him, and settle with
himself. He meant a subject to dispose of ; and Burke went away.
Saw him again in one of Dr. Knox's rooms, in Surgeons'-square, along
with Hare, Mr. Jones, Dr. Knox's assistant, and the doctor. Heard
either Burke or Hare say they had a dead body or subject, which they
were to bring at night, and witness was instructed by Dr. Knox to re-
ceive any package that they might bring. Witness and Mr. Jones
were in the way about seven o'clock, when Burke, Hare, and a jporter
named M'Culloeh, came with an old tea chest. It was put into a cel-
lar, and the door locked, and witness and Jones went to Dr. Knox's
house, and informed him that the men had brought what was expected.
The men and the porter followed, or had preceded witness and Jones,
for when he came out he found them at tiie end of Newington. Dr.
Knox gave witness five pounds, which to prevent disputes, he was to
divide ; and having gone to a house and obtained change, he laid
the money on a table, and each took his share, leaving the sum to
the porter that had been bargained for. Five pounds was not the
whole price understood to be paid ; the balance was to be paid on
Monday, when Dr. Knox suw what had been brought. Tiie price he
believed generally was eight pounds, but no bargain was made. On
the Sunday morning, Lieutenant Patterson of the police, and Serjeant
Major Fisher, called on him, when he went with them, opened the
door of the cellar, and gave the package to them, which had been
left the night before. It was given. It was given in the same stale
in which it had been left the night before. The package was fastened
with ropes. He assisted in opening the box, which was found to
contain the body of an elderly female, w hich did not appear to have
been interred. The extremities were doubled up on the chest and
thorax, and the head was^ressed down as il* for want of room. At
the request of the lieutenant of police, he examined the body extei -
11 ally while stretched on a table. The face was very livid, and blood
flowed from the mouth. In his opinion the appearance of the coun-
tenance of the face indicated strangulation or suffocation, by being
overlaid. He found no other external marks upon the body that
would be supposed to cause death. Was not present at the dissec-
tion of the body. The eyes were not started, nor did the tongue
hang out. The head was a good deal piessed down for want of
room. Observed no mark about the throat. The lips and nose
were dark coloured, and a little stained with blood.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty — iiis reason for saving
that death was caused by suffocation was, that the blood in a stran-
gled or suffocated person rises to the head, and gives the face a livid
appearance. Had seen. the man Hare before; and knew that Dr.
Knox had dealings with hirn for the procuring of dead bodies, The
'doctor also had had dealings with Burke, who seemed to a;! jointly
'with Hare. Had seen both assume a principal part. Thep'/r'equentp \
' brought subjects to the lecture rooms, which he supposed had 'not been
"interred tl \<X known of* young men, who attended poor patients

25

who died, givo information of that fact to Dr. Knox, who handed
over the direction to such persons to endeavour to make a purchase.
In one instance a note was given to himself, and he handed it to
these men, but the purchase was not made on that occasion.

By the Court — The body after he examined it, was left in charge
of the police.

By the Dean of Faculty — Divided the <£5. into £2. 10s. for each,
to prevent drunken quarrels. Had seen such quarrels frequently
between them.

By a Juryman— Could not say M'Dougal heard what Burke
said to him in an under tone. The room, however, was small, and
all might possibly have heard what was said.

By the Dean of Faculty — Both men were the worse of liquor
when he went to Burke's, but not so much as not to know what they
were doing.

John Broggan, carter, was in Burke's house on the afternoon
of Hallowe'en. Burke and his wife, and Hare and his wife, were
there. An old woman, a stranger, was also there, whom he left in
the house at seven o'clock. He returned to the house about two in
the morning, when he found Hare and his wife, and the prisoner
and his wife. Hare and Burke were talking at the window. He
fell asleep at the lire-side, beside the women, and Hare and Burke
were in the bed. He left Burke's about seven in the evening, and
returned again early in the morning. The prisoner and his wife,
Hare and bis wife, and Mr. and Mrs. Gray, were present. Some one
asked, what had become of the spaewife ? and the female prisoner
answered, she seemed to be very fashions, and had asked for warm
and cold water, and flannel to wash herself with.; that the two
men began a fighting, when the old woman roared out murder; that
she, M'Dougal, gave her a kick, and thrust her out of the house, for
an old Irish blackguard. In the forenoon, he saw Burke fling
whiskey up lo the roof of the house, then into his own bosom, and
afterwards upon the bed. Burke crept under the bed, and when he
did so he had a cup with whiskey in his hand. Saw him come out
again with the cup in his hand. Burke desired witness to sit down
on a chair at the foot of the bed, and not to move off it till he re-
turned. M'Dougal was then in the house; and must have heard the
direction given not to move off the chair. When he left the room
Gray and his wife, and Burke and his wife, were left behind.

Ann Dougal or Gray knows the prisoners. Witness and her hus-
band lodged five nights in their house in the end of October. Saw a
strange woman there on the last Friday of October, who had on a dark
sort of gown, and a red striped bed-gown under it. (Identified them.)
She called herself Docherty. Was in the house with her till near dark
on Friday. Burke said he had met her in a shop, and brought her in
about nine o'clock in the morning. Burke turned witness and her
husband out, because he said they quarrelled. He ordered them out of
the house directly. Witness left the house at that time, about five
o'clock. Burke said he would pay their lodgings for them that night,
and told them to go to Wm. Hare's. Went to Hare's with his wife,
who was in Burke's at the time. Returned to Burke's about nine
o'clock, for some of her child's clothes ; and found the old woman
singing, and Mrs. Burke and Mrs. Hare dancing. Burke and Hare
were drinking. Witness left Docherty there. In the course of the

26

day Docherty wished to go out, but Mrs. Burke advised her to stop
and take a sleep. Hare and his wife, and Mr. Burke, came and had
supper in Hare's ; and afterwards went all away, leaving witness and
her husband in the house. The Hares did not return that night. The
first thing she heard in the morning was Burke asking for her husband.
Witness and her husband went and got breakfast in Burke's about nine
o'clock. Mrs. Law and Mrs. Conway, and the lad Broggan were there,
besides the prisoners. Asked Mrs. Burke where the old woman was,
who said she was too impudent, and that she had turned her out. The
old woman was the worse of liquor the night before. Witness went to
the corner where the straw was to look for a pair of her child's stock-
ings. Burke asked what she wanted, and swore an oath for her to keep
away from that place. At that time Burke was throwing whiskey about
the house, and under the bed. Said he wanted the bottle toom (empty)
to get more. He three times threw whiskey under the bed with a cup,
and put some on his breast also. Witness was ordered to go under the
bed for some potatoes to put on. She went and brought out some.
The straw was lying at the foot of the bed, in a corner. Witness was
out two or three times in the middle of the day. Burke went out at
one time and told Broggan to sit on a chair, near the straw till he came
back. Witness's husband was there at the time. Witness offered to
clean the house ; but Burke said " Never mind, it will do." Burke
would not let witness search the straw for the stockings. Witness and
her husband were afterwards left in the house with Mr. Burke, who was
on the bed. Witness looked on purpose, as she was afraid, from their
proceedings, that there was something wrong, and the first thing she
got hold of was the old woman Docherty's right arm. There was then
no clothes on the body. Her husband lifted the head ; and they
.saw that the face was a little over with blood, about the mouth and one
side of the head. Did not observe any wound about the body. It was
lying on the right side. Witness flung the shawl upon it. Her husband
and she left the house, and met Mrs. Burke on the stair when her hus-
band told her about the body ; and asked about it. She told him to hold
his tongue, and she would give him two or three shillings ; and if he
would be quiet he would be woi'th ten pounds a-week. Witness turned
back with Mrs. Burke, when she told her it was the old woman's body,
who was well last night dancing on the floor. She bade her hold her
tongue again, and she would give her five or six shillings ; and repeated,
if her husband would be quiet he might be worth ten pounds a-week. Wit-
ness replied, " God forbid that I should be worth it in that way by dead
people." Her husband gave information to the police. She saw the
body again in the Police-Office.

Cross-examined — Witness slept in Burke's house on the Thursday
night, on the straw. Was in Burke's all the forenoon of Friday, and
never out but for a stoupful of water. Went to Hare's about dark.
Nobody asked her to come back to Burke's, but she went there for her
child's clothes. Thought, as it was Hallowe'en night, that they did
not wish her among them. Her husband went with her for the clothes.
It was about nine o'clock, and she did not stop many minutes. It was
then they were dancing and singing. Does not remember Mrs. Conna-
way there. When witness went down to breakfast, did not see Hare
and his wife there. Is sure Mrs. Hare was in her own house. She had
come there long before witness went down to Burke's. When witness
spoke to M'Dougal about the body, she said — " My God ! how could
J help it." She used the same words upon the stair!

27

By the Court — Witness replied — if she could not help it, she
should not stay in the house. Those words of M'Dougal were used
after she had offered witness the few shillings, and spoke of ten pounds
a-week to her husband. It was after the offer of money, and ten pounds
a-week, that witness said, " Would she mean to bring a family to dis-
grace ; " and prisoner replied — " My God ! how can f help it."

James Gray, labourer, husband of the foregoing witness, cor-
roborated the chief parts of her testimony. Burke said they must
go out that night; he had 'provided a home for them, and they
might come home next morning to breakfast — gave no reason to him
for it. Burke look them to Hare's, and pitched on the bed they
were to sleep in himself. — Burke said, he thought the old woman
was a relation of his mother's. Was present when his wife found
the dead body, and knew it to be that of the old woman Docherty.
Described the conversation on the stair. Mrs. Burke fell on her
knees and implored that he would not inform of what he had
seen — said she would give him some shillings to put him over till
Monday, and there was never a week after that but he might be
worth ten pounds. He said his conscience would not let him do it.
He heard her repeat nearly the same words in the house to his wife.
She did say there that she could not help it j but did not hear her
say so on the stair. They afterwards went into a public-house with
Hare and his wife, and afterwards to the Police Office and gave in-
formation. Described the appearance of the body in similar terms
with his wife. Knew it at once to be the old woman's body.

Cross-examined. — It was about five o'clock when witness and his
wife left Burke's house first. Burke came to Hare's for them about
seven, he thinks. Burke was not in Hare's at supper j but Mrs.
Burke was. The Hares had left it before Burke came.

John M'Cullock, porter. — On the rst of November, at six in the
evening, Burke came for witness to carry something for him. Did
not say what it was. Followed him to the West Port, to his own
house, and got a box. Burke went into his house, and took some
straw off a sheet, and put the sheet into a box, and packed it. TSie
sheet was not empty, it had something in it of the shape of a body.
Felt somethihg like hair when he was going to lift the box. Wit-
ness put the hair into the box. — (Witness was here warned to tell
the truth ) — There was a good deal of pressing before the body was
got in. Hare was present, and assisted in pressing down the body
into the box. The sheet was left where the box went to. Identi-
fied the box. Could not say whether it was a man or woman's hair
he saw. The box was roped, and Burke ordered him to carry it.
Burke told him to go down Cowgate, and up High School Wynd,
and he would be directly after him. Burke met him near Surgeons'
Square, along with his wife, and Hare and his wife. Went in at a
gate, and the box was taken off his back. It was about half-past
six. Afterwards went to Newington with Burke and Hare and the
two wives. The men stood aside, and David Patterson came to themr
when witness and Patterson and Burke went into a public-house, and

28

John Fisher, Serjeant of Police, went to West Port, in conse-
quence of information, to the house of the prisoner Burke to inquire
into the case. Found Burke and Mac Dougal on the stairs coming
out. Gray was with witness. Took prisoners both to their own
house; and asked Burke what had become of his lodgers. Hesaid,
there was one, Cpointing to Gray) and that he had turned out him
and his wife for their bad conduct. Witness then asked where was
the little woman who had been there the day before j when Burke
said she bad gone away about seven o'clock in the morning, and that
William Hare saw her go away. Witness asked if any other person
did, when he answered, in an insolent tone, "Yes, there was a num-
ber more." Witness then examined the place, and saw marks of
blood about the bed. M'Dougal said the little woman he asked after
could be found, as she lived in the Pleasancc, and she had seen her
that night at the Vennal, when she apologised for her bad conduct.
Asked M'Dougal at what time the woman left her house, and she
said it was seven o'clock at night. He then took the prisoners to
the Police Office, and returned to Burke's house with the superin-
tendent and Dr. Black ; when they found a striped bed-gown on the
bed and took it with them. It is the one now shown him. Saw blood
quite fresh. Went to Dr. Knox's next morning, and got a box with
the body of a woman in it, quite naked. Sent for Gray, who recog-
nised the body, which they removed in the other part of the day to
the Police Office. It was shown to the prisoners who denied all
knowledge of it. The body was afterwards examined by Dr. Chris-
tison and Dr. Mewbigging.

Cross-examined. — Hare and li is wife also denied all knowledge
of the body, or having seen it either dead or alive.

William Haire, or Hare, asocius criminis, an accomplise, was warned
to speak the truth,— as, if he deviated from it, the result would be the
most condign punishment that could be inflicted. — Witness is a native
of Ireland. Has been ten years in this country. Was asked, being a
Roman Catholic, if he would wish to be sworn tin any other way, he
said, he had never taken an oath before ; and it was about all one he
believed. He was then sworn again, with his right hand upon a cross,
drawn with ink on a copy of the New Testament. — Became acquainted
with the prisoners about a year ago. — Was in a public house along
with Burke on Hallowe'en day. Nobody else was with them. Burke
told witness to go down to his house to see the shot he had got for the
doctors ; that there was an old woman there whom he had got off the
streets ; and he wished witness to go down and see how she was coming
on. Understood by a shot, that Burke was going to murder her.
Went down alone to Burke's house, and found a strange man and wo-
man, besides, M'Dougal and the old woman. The strange man and
woman are called Gray. The old woman was washing her short-gown,
which was reddishstriped — the one shewn him. Was in Mrs. C'onna-
way's betwixt eight and nine o'clock. Besides Connaway and his wife
there were Wra. Burke and Broggan, and another chap he did not know
Witness and wife, the old woman and M'Dougal, were left in Conna*;
way's. Burke came in afterwards with the old woman. They had
some more whiskey ; and all got pretty hearty. Were dancing and
singing in Connaway's. Quarrelled with Burke afterwards in his own
house, who struck him, and they had a fight together. The women
tried to separate them. Witness was pushed down on the bed twice.

29

The old woman was sitting at the fire. She rose and wished Burke to
sit down ; for lie had used her decently while in the house, and she did
not wish to see him ill-used. She ran twice out of the house crying
either murder or police- — could not say which. M'Dougal fetched her
back both times. When witness and Burke were fighting, witness
pushed the old woman over a little stool, and . she was so drunk she
could not get up again farther than to sit. She still called to Burke to
quit fighting* He did quit at last, and witness lay still on the bed.
Burke then got on the top of the old woman who was on the floor,
and laid himself down upon her with his hreast on her head. She cried,
not loudly, but he held(in her breath ; and she only moaned a little af-
terwards. Burke put one hand on her nose and mouth, and the.other
under her chin, and continued this for ten or fifteen minutes, saying
nothing while doing it. He then got up from the woman, who did not
move after that. Burke put his hand across her mouth again for two
or three minutes, when she appeared quite dead. Witness was sitting
on the chair all this time. Burke then stripped off' the clothes, and
put them under the bed ; doubled the body up, put the straw on the top
of it, and covered it up. When M'Dougal and Hare's wife heard^the
first screech of the old woman, they leapt out of bed and ran into the
passage. They did not come in again till the body was under the.
straw. Before the murder, the women were lying in bed with the rug
over them. Witness was sitting at the head of the bed on the chair.
Did not observe any blood at that time. Did not hear the women say
any thing when in the passage. Before the women sprung out of bed
Burke was on the top of the women. She gave a screech, and they leapt
out of bed- None of them tried to save the woman. Witness's wife
ran out first, and M'Dougal followed. Neither of them made any
attempt to take Burke oft' the woman. It was about ten minutes be-
fore this the women separated witness and Burke. When the women
came in Burke went out, and returned in about ten minutes. The
women asked no questions. They went to bed again. Never asked
for the old woman when they came back. Burke brought the doctor's
man with him (Patterson), and asked him to look at the body, but he
would not do it, and tofd him to get a box, and put it in. The women
were in bed. Does not know if they were awake. Did not hear them
speak at all from the time they went into the passage. Witness fell
asleep while Patterson was there- Knew what he was about, " though
a little drunkish." He awoke between six and seven in the morning.
Slept in the chair, with his head on the side of the bed. The two
women and Broggan were all in the bed, and Burke was sitting at the
fire. M'Dougal is Broggan's aunt. Witness and his wife went home,
and saw Gray and his wife, who had slept there all night. They had
fallen out with Burke, in the evening, and applied for a bed. Met
Burke next morning, who gave him a dram in Mr. Rymer's shop.
Asked him to go with him to see about a box. Afterwards went to
Surgeons' Square, and inquired about a box, but got none there.
He then said lie had one bespoke from Mr, Rymer's shop boy. Saw
the box afterwards in Burke's house. A porter brougnt it in. Burke
afterwards came in. M'Culloch is the porter's name. MetBurke
at the back door, and went back to the house. Burke said to wit-
ness, he was little worth or he would have had the body in the
box. Witness afterwards helped in with it, and the porter
pressed it in. It was then roped. It is the boxin Court, or one lika-

30

it. The porter took it to Surgeons' Square. Burke followed at the
same time, and witness went with the porter. The women fol-
lowed them. Burke and witness went into the house with the
porter. The box was put in a cellar, and they went to the doctor's
house at Newington. Mr. Patterson' came out to them, and asked
them to a public-house, where he paid them some money. All the
three went in. Saw the women on the Newiugton road, both going
and coming ; but they did not go to the house. Got five pounds
between them, except five shillings to the porter. Burke and wit-
ness got each £'2. 7s. 6d. They were to get live pounds more on
Monday. Saw Burke taken up that night. Witness was taken up
next morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn. — Has been here about ten
years. Has beena boatma*n and a labourer during that time. Has
been sometimes employed in selling fish. Has been concerned in
supplying doctors with subjects as mentioned.

Mr, Cockburn. — Have you been concerned in supplying the
doctors on other occasions than that you have mentioned ?■
The Lord Advocate objected to this question.

Mr. Cockburn. — I hold that I am entitled to test this gentle-
man^ credibility with the jury ; and with that view I propose to ask
him if he was concerned in any murder except this one.

Lord Advocate.— Thought the Dean of Faculty had agreed to
confine himself to the present case.

Lord Meadowbank thought it neither a fit nor proper thing to

Mr. Cockburn. — All evidence is adduced because it is entitled
or presumed to be entitled to credit. Now it is monstrous to sup-
pose that I would not be allowed to test the credit of a human being
in regard to his evidence. He then referred to a case lately tried in
England of conspiracy,— where a witness in similar circumstances
was interrogated, and admitted that he had been guilty of the most
atrocious crimes, in consequence of which her evidence was totally
discredited.

Mr. Alison replied, that the law Of England was in no point
more opposed to the law of Scotland than in regard to evidence. A
"witness here is not to be called to answer to his whole life and con-
conversation. The utmost license was allowed to cross-examin-
ation in England, but this is contrary to the uniform and funda-
mental law of Scotland.

The Dean of Faculty. — I entirely concur with my learned
friend. Our object is to discredit, not to disqualify him. We were
bound to propose a question to try the veracity of this witness.
The witness was warned that he was standing upon his oath being
peculiarly situated ; but it happens in most cases that he will
answer it, and answer it falsely. If he answer it truly it will be for
his credit ; if falsely, it will be for the benefit of his client.

The Lord Chief Justice thought the question might be put,
but the witness would be cautioned that he was not bound to crimi-
nate himself; for if he answered the question, he could expect no
protection from the Court.

Lord Meadowbank reiterated his former opinion. It is not in
the power of a witness to disqualify himself; and if this question
were put, it would have that effect and no other, He never heard

31

such a question proposed by which it would be in a witness's own
power to disqualify himself by confessing' himself to have been guilty
of a crime infering infamy.

Lord Mackenzie thought the question might be put,— the witness
being cautioned that he is not bound to criminate himself, and warn-
ed of the consequence, viz. that he has no protection, except for the
crime now before the Court. Witness cannot disqualify himself,—
to effect that he must confess a conviction. The admission of his
having been guilty of a secret crime will not disqualify him. He had
yet seen no authorities to shake this.

Lord Chief Justice coincided in the view of Lord Mackenzie,
althoughhe agreed with Lord Meadowbank, in thinking this the
" most extraordinary question he ever heard." But the case is an.
extraordinary one, and allowances mu^t be made.

Lord Advocate wished to know in what situation lie was
placed ? Was he allowed to ask bim, if he confessed, of what mur-
ders were you guilty ?-

Mr. Cockburn.— We put this question, and lhe Lord Advocate
is entitled to put any others he pleases. I cannot state the thing
more generally. We intend to object to no question the Lord Advo-
cate may chuse to ask.

Haire re-called.---Assisted in taking the old woman to Surgeon
Square. This is the only body he ever was concerned in carrying..
Never carried any other bodies. He " never was concerned in
none," but he saw them done.

Lord Justice Cleric—You are not bound to answer the ques-
tion about to be put.

Mr. Cockburn stated to the witness that he was not bound to
answer the question. How often had you seen them doing it ? De-
clines to answer. Is this of the old woman the first murder you
have ever been concerned in T Declines to answer. Was there a
murder committed in your house last October ? Declines to answer.
Remembers Burke saying he bad got a shot. He understood that to
mean a person whom he was to murder. Had heard the expression,
" got a shot," used by Burke before, but not often. He said it many
times when he did not mean to murder. On this occasion told wit-
ness he meant to murder the woman between eleven and twelve.
Witness was dancing in Connaway's that night. When at Conno-
way's he had no notion there was to be any mischief that night, ex-
cept '* from his (Burke's) speeches." First time he formed anv no-
tion, was when he saw him (Burke) on the top of the old woman.
Saw her dead body in the police office* Denied at the police that
he knew the body. Could not say whether he denied he had seen
the body alive. Has not received money at various times from Dr.
Knox, nor from his assistants. Burke received the money for the
old woman's body. Four pounds in notes, and one pound in silver.
Burke threw two notes across the table to witness, and the rest of
the change. Is certain that Patterson did not pay him. Patterson
put the four notes,. two and two, and halved the silver. Does not
know which of the two paid the porter. Never had any quarrels or
disputes with Burke about payments from Knox or his assistants.
Never had any quarrels with Burke on money matters at all. The old
woman went to the passage and called out " Police," or " Murder,**

32

When Burke got on her she gave a screech or shout, and he heard
no one afterwards call police or murder. Burke and he had been
lighting before the screech. All the fighting* was before the screech
— none during it, and none after it. The two women and Brogan
were on the bed, and witness at the side of the bed. Witness did
net see Broggan come in. Sat on the chair for ten minutes while
Burke was dealing with, or murdering the woman, without moving
hand or foot. Sat by and saw it all done with his own eyes, without
calling murder or police* Took the body to Surgeons'-square, and
took money for it and next day denied, in the police-office, that he
had ever seen it.

Mr&. H aire or Hare, wife of the preceding witness, was solemnly
admonished by Lord Meadowbank, after which she was examined by the
Lord Advocate. Lives in Portsburgh. Remembers last Hallowe'en
night. Two people, Gray* and his wife, stopping in Burke's house, stop-
ped in her house for one night. Burke asked her to give them a bed.
This was in the course of the day. Thinks it was in day light, but is
not sure if it was in the forenoon- or afternoon. Went out that night in
search of her husband. Found him in John Counaway's, and M'Dougal
was also there. Had spirits in their house. Did not recollect seeing an
old womau in Connaway's. Stopped till her husband rose, and thea
she and her husband and M'Dougal went to Burke's. Burke came in
soon after. The old woman was there before. There was a fight between
her husband and Burke. She tried to separate therm The old woman
went and cried "murder" and was shoved over; Saw Burke sit on the
top of her. Ran into the passage with Nelly M'Dougal, where they re-
mained till the door was opened. None of them cried out. Stood in the
passage about a quarter of an hour. Witness said nothing about her
having a suspicion the woman was murdered. M'Dougal asked no ques.-
tions. Afterwards lay down in bed. Was standing between the door and
the bed, when Burke leaned upon the old woman. There was very
little room between the door and the bed. Burke had not lain many mi-
nutes on the woman when Nelly M'Dougal and Witness flew out. Could
not say exactly where M'Dougal was standing. Witness had a glass in,
her hand, but was not the worse of liquor. Was alarmed at what she saw.
Saw Burke on the woman, but could not say whether on her mouth or on
her breast. Had some previous reason of suspicion. Had seen a little
trick of it done before. M'Dougal had, in the course of the afternoon,
gone to witness's and said, " there was a shot in the house." She did
not say any thing about the meaning of a shot, but that Burke had pick-
ed a stranger out of a shop, M'Dougal told her it was a woman, at the
same time she mentioned it was a ''shot." She did not say expressly
she was to be made away with ; but witness understood perfectly that
this was to be done. Her reason for understanding a shot was, that she
had known it on former occasions applied to murdering or making away
with a person. They had given the woman drink, but were not pressing
it upon her, yet she was rather the worse of drink. Witness remained
at Burke's till between four and five next mornings Was lying in .bed
when Paterson came in. Nobody was in bed with her. Knows of the
bo;ly lying at the foot of the bed. Knows of a box. She went for
it to Rymer's Shop, but M'Culloch, the porter, took it out of her hand
and took it away. Followed her husband and Burke for fear they would
fall a fighting. Went first to the Cowgate,, and then part, of the way to

33

Newington. Made no answer that she recollects about the "shot."
Said nothing about it on their way to Newington. M'Dougal expressed
no regret on account of the old woman's murder. While in the passage,
while the murder was committing, they had a few words about the killing
of the woman, and said to each other, it might be the same thing with
them, meaning that they too might be murdered. Knew that Mrs. Con-
naway and Mrs. Law lived near, but said nothing to alarm them. It
was not natural she should inform on her husband. Had left him three
or four times, because she was not living a contented life.

By the Court. — The old woman went only to the first door to call
police. There are two doors on the passage. She came back of herself.
It was after this she was pushed down. Could not exactly say how long
she remained, but shortly after Burke leaped upon her. When Burke
was upon her, heard no groans. The reason why she (witness) ran out
was, she was afraid she would see the woman murdered. She thought
nothing of what had been said about a " shot?' in the forenoon. Did
not expect the old woman was to be murdered that night. Had made
no remarks.

By the Dean of Faculty.— Cannot say who pushed the old woman
down. Instantly after she was pushed down, Burke got upon her.
There is a door at the outer end of the passage, which latches or snecks,
but she does not recollect on which side. Nobody knocked on the door
when they were in the passage so far as witness heard. Did not hear
the old woman cry when she was in the passage, or make a noise. She
had not power to go out of the passage. Said not a word when she
went into the room again. Cannot say whether Burke and Hare were
sitting or standing when she re-entered. Went to bed, but did not deep
at first, though she afterwards fell into a dose. Broggan came in, and
they had a dram, of which Burke and Broggan, witness and M'Dougal ,
partook. Witness rose out of bed when Patterson went out. Did not
go into bed again. M'Dougal was not in bed. Broggan, M'Dougal,
and witness lay down upon the floor. Burke and Hare fell a-fighting
again. Burke lifted a stick to strike Hare, and M'Dougal took it out
of his hand. Never saw the old woman get up off the ground after she
fell. Does not remember how long she was in Counaway's,but when she
went to Burke's, she found there Hare and M'Dougal, but cannot re-
collect whether Burke was in, or came in a little after.

By the Court. — The reason why she did not go home was, that she was
waiting for her husband, and trying to get him to go along with her.

Dr. Black was shewn the body of a woman in the Police Office, on
Sunday, 2nd. November. Examined it externally. It exhibited no
marks or blemishes of any consequence. There was some blood about
her mouth and nose, and some saliva was mixed with the blood. The
eyes and face were much swollen, and the latter of a blackish hue. In
a medical point of view, he could give no opinion as to the cause of
death. At the time he examined the body his opinion was that the wo-
man had died a violent death by suffocation.

By the Dean of Faculty. — Has no medical diploma, but has been,
surgeon to the Police for 20 years and upwards. On the Saturday when
information was lodged at the Police Office, he went to the West Port
and found from 14 to 16 ounces of blood mixed with saliva, and having
been told the woman had laid in that place, he concluded that it had
come from her. But from any thing he saw relative to the appearances
of the body, he is really afraid to hazard an opinion.

34

By the Court. — Has seen several corpses that died by suffocation ; and
taking the whole circumstances into view thinks the appearances identi-
cal.

By the Dean of Faculty.- Has repeatedly seen cases in the Police of
suffocation from drink and other causes. Has had no cases of simple
suffocation. The symptoms herewere the same, or nearly so, as in caseg
of suffocation by drink. The eyes were nearly started from the sockets.

By the Lord advocate. — Has seen no saliva such as he described, in
cases of drink, unless some in jury had been done.

Dr. Christison.— Saw and examined minutely a body in the Police
Office on the 2d. and 3d. of November. Saw several contusions on the
leys and the elbow, one on the loin, one on the right shoidder blade, a
very small one on the inside of the upper lip, and twottpon the head ; one
on the back part of the left side of the head, and the other xiyon the fore
part of the right side. Witness like wise found pale lividity of the fea-
tures generally, and dark lividity of the lips, yreat redness from vascu-
larity of the whites of the eyes ; an almost total want of lividity on almost
every other part of the body but the face ; roughing of the scarf skin or
cuticle under the chin and over the tipper part of the throat. Internally
found general fluidity of the blood and an accumulation of it in the right
cavities of the heart ,• in the middle of the neck, found the ligaments con-
necting the posterior parts of two of the vertebrae torn, blood effused
among the spinal muscles near the laceration, and into the cavities of
the spinal muscles ; and found no sign of natural diseasv, except a very
slight incipient disorder of the liver. All the other organs of the head,
the chest, and the belly, were unusually sound. Witness forgot to men-
tion a small patch of blood on the left cheek, and likewise a very slight
contusion over the left eye. Does not consider that the contusions could
be produced after death, but the injury of the spine and other aj>pear-
ances described, might have been caused as well after death as before it.
An injury properly applied 18 hours after death would cause the same
appearances. Cramming into a box like that shown, might have caused
these appearances. Stranyidation, or smothering, or throttling, is con-
sistent with the appearances described ; but jjarticularly throttling, by
applying the hand under the throat, and throwing the head backward,
which woxdd check the access of the air. Found unequivocal proof of
violence in the conttisions dispersed through the body, and in no cause of
death being visible. He begged to add, from the woman being seen re-
cently before alive and well, the blood under the bed, as well as the ap-
pearances already mentioned, death by violence was extremely probable.
If the woman had met her death by Burke and his wife, the appearances
were such as would correspond with those circumstances. The appear-
ances in some cases of suffocation would be similar to those in the present.
The appearance of blood from the nose or mouth after death may be pro-
duced by any species of suffocation. Directly or indirectly, death by in-
toxication must physiologically be occasioned by suffocation.

Cross-( x imined by Mr. Cockburn. — The appearances found in the bo-
dy justify only a suspicion, and with the circumstances mentioned, they
amount only to a probability.

By the court. — Opened the stomach, w^en he found half-digested por-
ri ge, but no smell of whiskey or of any narcotic. The smell is not a
necessary circumstance even in cases of intoxication ; at least witness
Jtnows, a repotted case where a person was said to have died of conti-
nuous intoxication, without any smell being found in the stomach, though

35

it was found in the brain and other parts of the body. Knew a similar
case where the stomach on being opened gave out the effluvia of whiskey.
This closed the case for the prosecution.

The djeclarations of the prisoners were then read, and from their
number, occupied a considerable time. Burke described himself as a
native of Ireland ; that he has been ten years in Edinburgh ; is a shoe-
maker; and lived with Elizabeth M'Dougal, but was not married to her.
He pretended to account for the dead body being in his house, bv saying
it was brought there by a porter

The Lord Advocate addressed the jury on behalf of the crown.
After a few preliminary observations on the nature of the case, r,nd the
circumstances under which it had been brought forward. He went over
the evidence at some length, commenting on it, and showing its various
bearings on the respective cases of the two prisoners. His lordship con-
tended, that even independently of the evidence of the socii crirninis
altogether, the charge against the prisoner, Burke, had been completely
made out. He referred particularly to the evidence of Mary Stewart, of
Cray and his wife, of Elizabeth Paterson and her brother, and most espe-
cially of Alston ; and he maintained that their jjint testimony established
such a connected train of circumstances as could leave no doubt what-
ever as to the guilt of the prisoner. As to the case of M'Dougal, he
adverted to her previous knowledge of the intended crime, evinced by
her statement that they had a "shot in the house for the doctors," — toge-
ther with her offering a bribe to the parties cognizant of the facts to con-
ceal what they knew, and contended that her accession, as art and part
in the commission of the crime was completely made out. If it was not,
the case of the prosecutor, he said, would be truly lamentable ; for, in
that case, he might abandon all hope in future of ever obtaining a convic-
tion where a crime of an occult nature had been committed.

The Dean of Faculty commenced his address to the jury, on behalf
of Burke, precisely at three o'clock this morning. After some general
observations on the nature of the crime, the alleged circumstances of
atrocity attending it, the effect of the intent charged, the prejudices which
had been raised, and the influence of the various publications which had
taken place in the newspapers and otherwise, in exciting a ferment in the
public, together with a very ingenious attempt to get rid of the awkward
presumptions of the case on account of Burke's alleged trade of a resur-
rectionist,— he proceeded, with his usual great talent, to analize the
evidence, and to exhibit the numerous and striking contradictions between
the testimony of the accomplices and that of the other witnesses.

Mr. Cockburn addressed the jury on behalf of M'Dougal. In com-
menting on the testimony of the Hares, he said, even supposing their
evidence to be correct, it did not amount to certainty against her. To
talk of their credibility, was a sporting with men s lives, and a mockery
of justice. The evidence of these miscreants could not be received in
the same manner as the evidence of an honest person. Their character
was written in letters of blood, that never could be effaced from the
recollection of all who heard their horrid narrative. Could they con-
ceive that an accessory to murder was worthy of credit ? and yet the law
made him an admissible witness The man who was the chief evidence
in a trial for the crime of murder, — who had told that he sat on a chair,
within a yard of the muider and murderer, and raised not an arm, uttered
not a cry to save the unhappy victim : which was the most guilty,— the

36

the cool, cold-blooded spectator of the fuul murder, or the phrenzied
actor? There were certain questions which he felt it his duty to put
to Hare ; but which he warned him he need not answer unless he chose.
" I asked him," said Mr. C. "if he had been concerned in other mur-
ders ; but he declined to answer. I asked him whether a murder was
committed in his own house, in October last; and again that monster
took shelter in his privilege. In what situation was that man placed
when he gave his evidence? There were other murders hanging over his
head, upon which he might be libelled; he came from the jail and would
be returned to it,— knowing full well, that if the case failed, he might be
called upon to descend from the witness-box, to take, along with his
wife, his place at the bar— in short, to exchange places with the prisoners.
The monster had been that very day out of jail, to which he would be
again consigned, if he failed to make them (the jury) believe his story.
He had often heard of king's evidences, or approvers, in crimes to which
they had been accessaries; but of persons coming to give evidence with
other crimes of a similar nature hanging over their heads, the very idea
was horrible. If Hare and his wife had stood at the bar, and made a ju-
dicial confession of the crimes which they had stated from the witness-box,
sentence legally disqualifying them would have been recorded ; but being
allowed to make their confession from the box, they were not only freed
from the crime, but cleared to the effect of being converted into good and
credible witnesses — But what could a jury think of the evidence of the
man, who came forward and said, I have been guilty of one murder, but
want to free myself from blame by impeaching another who was not proba-
bly so guilty? They had seen the squalid wretch — who was the very
picture of poverty an;l vice— who stated, that his traffic was as revolting
to right feeling as his will was profligate His learned friend had surely
little skill in physiognomy, or he would never have put the female in the
box— on every line of whose countenance every evil passion was imprint-
ed. She stood in that box, with her miserable child in her arms, and,
instead of casting upon it a look of maternal kindness, seemed to eye it
only in a manner that added to her malignity. He would say, without
fear of contradiction, that he never had, in the course of his practice,
seen such wretches placed in the witness-box. The learned gentleman
alluded to the declaration, and said, if the jury allowed their minds to be
influenced by the statements of those documents, the prisoners would be
legally murdered. If they had doubts of the evidence ; and, said Mr. C.
" My God ! can you say that there is no doubts in the case ; the prisoner
must have the benefit of these doubts." It was the duty of the Public
Prosecutor to prove his case. << Talk not,'* said Mr. C , " of suspicions
of danger— no danger is greater than that of a criminal verdict on doubt-
ful evidence.'' Though the town should ring for months with clamour,
the jury are the more called upon to discharge their duty,— to separate
and discharge from their minds every prejudice, — recollecting that they
held in their hands the balance of justice, — that they were called upon to
decide in a doubtful case, — and that a doubt decided the fate of that un-
fortunate woman.

The Lord Chief Justice began his Charge to the jury at six o'clock
on Thursday morning, and finished about half past eight. His Lord-
ship expressed great satisfaction at the defence having been committed
to su;h eminent counsel : for he could assure them (the jury) he never
had heard the defence of any individuals conducted with more zeal and
consummate ability than that of the prisoners. There was another obser-

37

vatlon which he was called upon to bring under their notice,— -namely,
to express his thorough confidence that they would divest their minds of ;
every impression or prejudice which mi<rht have been raised from what «
they had read or heard out of doors. It would be a matter of infinite
regret if writings or publications, or any sort of feeling, should for one
instant affect their minds; but he was sure they knew their duty too .
well to be influenced by prejudice; they would be guided by nothing
but the facts as disclosed during the investigation. The evidence was
partly circumstantial, and partly direct. The first was composed o! a
number of minute facts and circumstances ; and the latter of the tes- ■
timony of socii. It would be their duty, first, to consider the general
evidence ; secondly, that of the socii ; and, thirdly, the combined effect of
both conjoined. From these, the verdict, upon a fair inference drawn
from a consideration of the whole, would be made up. His Lordship
then directed the attention of the jury to the way and manner the old
woman Campbell had been bereaved of life; informing them, that if
they were satisfied she had not died in consequence of violence, there
would be an end of the inquiry. If they held the contrary opinion,
they would proceed to consider whether she had lost her life by the
hands of the prisoners, or one or other of them. The evidence of the
identity of her person was the first branch of the investigation. His Lord-
ship then went over the whole evidence with great minuteness, comment-
ing upon those parts where there were seeming contradictions, or which
had been specially alluded to by the Public Prosecutor in the course
of the defence. With respect to the socii, his Lordship said they were en-
titled to credit if they gave a true account of the transaction of which they
spoke. He admitted they were not placed in the same situation with
a person against whom no suspicion existed; but it was the duty of the
jury to sift their evidence. They had been told of the Hares being con-
nected with other murders. With what murders they might be chargeable he
did not know ; but to a certainty they could not be libelled on either of the
charges contained in the libel now under trial, and which bad not been
sent to the jury. It was, therefore, unfounded in law to say, that these
two persons were liable to be tried for the two murders contained in the
indictment. These individuals who were under the protection of the Court,
had been called as accomplices, in the same manner as associates in rob-
bery, wilful fire raising, and other capital crimes. With respect to
M'Doifgal, his Lordship was understood to express his opinion, that if
the evidence was to be believed, she had been accessary before the com-
mission of the crime, during its commission, and after it was committed ;
and, upon the whole, he seemed to consider the libel as made out against
both.

The Jury retired at half- past eight, and after having been inclosed
for 50 minutes, returned a verdict, finding William Burke GUILTY of
the charge; and in regard to Helen Mac'Dougal, found the libel Nor

PFOVEN.

The Lord Advocate having moved for the sentence of the Court.
Loro Meadowbank said, after a trial of unexampled length — pro-
tracted to nearly twenty-four hours — a trial in which the. minds of your
Lordships have been excited to the uttermost, it would be improper in
me to detain the Court with commenting on the circumstances of this
most atrocious case ; and 1 feel that it is quite impossible for any one
who has attended to the proceedings on this trial, to think that we have
any thing left to do but to go through with \he distressing duty which

D

38

has now fallen to your Lordships to perform. But it is impossible, in
considering the whole circumstances of this distressing case, not to ad-
vert to that most extraordinary — that most unexampled, and that
atrocious system, which every one must feel has been developed by the
evidence brought forward. I am sure, and I speak in the presence of
your Lordships who can correct me if I am wrong, that in the whole
history of the country — I may say in the history of civilized society-
nothing has ever been exhibited that is in any respect parallel to this
case. —Murders have been committed before now ; crimes of all descrip-
tions have unhappily been too common ; but we had flattered ourselves
that our country was in a great measure free from the stigma of any
great or heinous atrocity within its bounds. That there should have
been found, therefore, not one but many, leagued and combined toge-
ther, in order to sacrifice their unoffending fellow-creatures, for the
purpose of disposing of their bodies, is to the last degree humi-
liating. The very announcement of such a system is sufficient to
raise ideas of. horror which it would be vain to search for words ade-
quately to express. When I take a view of the other features of this
case, it exhibits a picture of iniquity which the greatest stretch of ima-
gination can hardly take in, yet it was so clearly brought out in proof,
that I am sure it must carry conviction to every one who heard the
evidence. It is proved that the prisoner, in going up the street after
some of his usual avocations in the morning, fell in with this poor un-
protected old woman, with whom it is quite clear that he was perfectly
unacquainted before. Now began his arrangements for ensnaring his
victim. With the immediate feeling upon him of the object which he
had in view, he claims kindred with with her by a ficticious name ; and
by pretences of kindness, endeavours to gain on her affections. He
entices her into his own house, and there continued his friendship to
her, insomuch that she expressed gratitude to Mrs. Connaway
for the kindness with which he had treated her. He thus contrives so
far to achieve his object, that she seemed to have opened her affec-
tion and confidence to him — she looked to him for protection — she
felt he had dealt kindly with her — she refused to enter the house until
he entered with her. She did enter with him. A struggle, or preten-
ded struggle, ensued : and when I recollect that the moment she fell,
that struggle ended, I cannot rationally entertain a doubt that it
was feigned and got up for the purpose of entrapping her, and throwing
her of her guard. What did the individual to whom she looked for pro-
tection now do ? She is thrown down,and he,with the ferocity of a demon
throws himself upon her,and extinguishes life in a few moments. I do not
state this with any view whatever of exciting the feelings, of aggrava-
ting indignation against the unhappy prisoner; but really when such a
system of crime, in which there are many actors, is developed in the
midst of this great metropolis, I cannot resist stating the impression
which it has made upon my mind as one of the most atrocious exhibi-
tions of atrocity ever disclosed in the annals of criminal jurisprudence
in this or any other country. Sitting as I do in this place, there is lit-
tle occasion to advert to certain matters that were pointed at, and elo-
quently pointed at, in the course of the defence. I will only observe,
that with matters of science we have nothing to do. We have nothing
to do but to administer the law as handed down to us, and God forbid
that the claims of science, or of philosophy, or speculation of any kind,
shall prevent us from feeling the horror which such offences are natu»

39

rally calculated to excite. With respect to the issue to the prisoner,
your Lordships are aware that that issue must be death. The highest
law has said, "Thou shalt not kill — thou shalt do no murder;" and
the law of this country says, that he who commits murder shall suffer
death. The prisoner must have considered that he was committing the
high crime of murder. In his breast, as in the breast of every one, must
be implanted that feeling, that murder was the most heinous of crimes.
There is no doubt that it is the duty of the court to pronounce sentence
on the prisoner ; and I now suggest, that he be detained in the Tolbooth,
and he suffer death on the scaffold, on the 28th day of January next,
and his body be given for dissection.

Lord Mackenzie expressed his concurrence.

The Lord Chief Justice then addressed the prisoner nearly as follows r—
William Burke, you now stand convicted by the verdict of an intelligent and respec-
table jury, of the atrocious murder charged against you in the indictment, upon
evidence which could not leave a doubt of your guilt on the mind of any one who
heard it. I so fully concur in the view which has been so eloquently given by my
learned brother of the nature of the offence, that I will not occupy the time of the-
Court with commenting on it. A crime more atrocious, a more cold-blooded, deli-
berate, and systematic preparation for murder, and the motive so paltry, is unex-
ampled in the annals of the country. It is now my duty to inform you, that if ever
it was clear beyond the possibility of a doubt that sentence would in any case be
carried into full execution, this one of those cases. You may rest assured that
you have no other chance : and I would now solemnly warn yon to prepare your
mind in the most suitable manner to appear in a very short time before the throne of
Almighty God to answer for this crime, and for every other with which you stand
chargeable in your own conscience. The necessity of repressing crimes ©f this
nature precludes the possibility of your entertaining the slightest hope of a remis-
sion of your sentence. The only doubt I have in my mind isr whether to satisfy the
violated laws of year country, and the voice of public indignation, your body ought
not to be exhibited in chains, to bleach in the winds, in order to deter others from
the commission of similar offences. But taking into consideration that the public
eye would be offended by so dismal a spectacle,. I am wi/ling to accede to a more
lenient sentence, and that your body should be publicly dissected. I trust that if it
is ever customary to preserve skeletons, your skeleton will be preserved, in order
that posterity way keep in remembrance your atrocious crimes. I earnestly advise
you to lose no time in humbling yourself in the sight of G<>d, and that you will seek
the aid of the ministers of religion, to whatever professitf n you may belong. The
present charges having been fully established against yo u, it is my duty to inform
you that you have but a few days to remain on the earth. His Lordship then pro-
nounced, with due solemnity, the sentence of the law.

The scene was altogether awful and impressive. The prisoner
stood up with unshaken firmness. Not a mui cle of his features was
discomposed during the solemn address of the Lord Justice Clerk coti-
signing him to his doom. The female prisone* was much agitated, and
was drowned in tears during the whole of tin's: melancholy procedure.

THE SENTENCE.

40

FROM AN EDINRURGH PAPER.

The civil authorities took every precaution to preserve the
public peace. The High Constables of the city and its de-
pendencies mustered at six o'clock in the evening, and the
police received a temporary reinforcement of upwards of
three hundred men, who were on duty the whole time. In
order, however, to repress effectually any disturbance, the
infantry in the Castle, and the cavalry at Piershill, were under
orders, at a moment's notice, to march into the city. Not-
withstanding this, however, a mob assembled in the course of
the night, and proceeded to Surgeons' Square, with the in-
tention of attacking the lecture rooms ; but a strong body
of students, armed with pistols, and flanked by two detach-
ments of police, shewed so formidable a front, that they were
compelled to retreat.

Murder of JAMES WILSON, commonly called Daft Jamie-
Daft Jamie was murdered in the house of the witness Hare, who
has mentioned some circumstances connected with the destruction of
this poor innocent, caulclated to form a suitable pendant to the account
of the death of Madgy (Jonegal. Jamie was enticed into Hare's
house by Burke, the usual decoy duck in this traffic of blood (the ap-
pearance of Hare himself being so inexpressibly hideous that it would
scare even this vioping idiot), and he was plied with liquor for a con-
siderable time. At first he refused to imbibe a single drop ; but by
dint of coaxing yind perseverance, they, at last, induced him to take
a little. At length, however, he became overpowered ; and laying}
himself down on ^the floor, fell asleep. Burke, who was an.vunisly
watching his opportunity, then said to Hare, " Shall J doit now ?*'
to which Hare replied, " He is too strong for you yet ; you had better
let him alone for aivhile." Both the ruffians seemed to have been
afraid of the physical strength which they knew the poor creature
possessed, and of fhh use he would make of it, if prematurely roused.
JJurke, accordingly waited a little, but getting impatient to accomplish
his object, he suddenly threw himself upon Jamie, and attempted to
strangle him. This Roused the poor creature, and muddled as he was
with liquor and sleep) he threw JJurke off and got upon his feet, when
a desperate struggle ensued. Jamie fought with the united frenzy of
madness and despair, \and Burke 7vas about to be overpowered, when
he called cut fnriously to Hare to assist him. This Hare did, by trip-
ping up Jamie's heels | after which both the ruffians got upon him, and
at te)iglhj though not^ even without the greatest difficulty, succeeded
in strangling him. \

A girl, who had be\en servant to the Hares, and who had fied after
being received as a urim ess oh Burke's trial, has been apprehended at I
(Jla.igow, and is now in\ custody at Edinburgh to await any furtherl
pioceedhys which the p ublic prosecutor may think proper to institute.

J,\ Pratt, Pviuter, Manchester,

/ , ■